Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Prices

Mr. Carter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the cost of food has increased since 18th June, 1970.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what amount food prices have increased since 18th June, 1970.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen between 1st June, 1970, and 30th September, 1971, and by what percentage during the year ended 30th September, 1971.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the cost of food has risen since 18th June, 1970; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the Food Index has risen from June, 1970, to the latest available date.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): Between 16th June, 1970, and 17th August, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 11·6 per cent.

Mr. Carter: Is the Minister aware that that is a scandalous message for the nation? Is he further aware that his belated recognition of the fact that people have been profiteering and fiddling over decimalisation is in itself a contribution to this rise in prices? What action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to stop these spivs carrying out these practices?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman uses extravagant language about the decimal currency with which I do not think anybody will agree. I am sure that once housewives become fully accustomed to the new currency they will he as keen shoppers as ever they were. Meanwhile extra vigilance is required.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that these figures show only too clearly that this Government were elected as a result of the biggest confidence trick in history? Since entry into the European Economic Community will aggravate the position, why does not the Minister, as the Prime Minister's side-kick and messenger boy, tell his right hon. Friend to set British housewives free and to give them a chance of a free vote on this issue?

Mr. Prior: I think the right answer is to get prices under control if we are to have a prosperous and competitive economy. Our policy, which has low taxes and high economic growth as its aim, will do that, in sharp contrast to the six wasted years of Labour Government.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the main burden of the scandalous increases falls on people least able to bear them, particularly the old? Is he also aware that these increases will well nigh use up the small increase in pensions which has been made to old people? What does he propose to do to keep up the buying power of what little money our old-age pensioners get?

Mr. Prior: I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's sentiments. Of course higher food prices, as other increased prices, bear most heavily on the old. The Government have this matter very much in mind, but the House will know that the retirement pension has recently been raised to bring the pension in real terms to the highest level it has ever reached

Mrs. Short: Why does not the Minister come clean with the House and the country and accept full responsibility for this appalling increase in the cost of living, rather than follow the line of all the rest of the lame ducks on the Government Front Bench who blame it all on the Labour Government? Furthermore, is he aware that this is only the first instalment of what will happen to the cost of living, and to food prices in particular, if the steamroller comes out and we are pressed into the Common Market on 28th October?

Mr. Prior: When the hon. Lady talks about the steamroller, I do not know which way she is looking.

Sir G. Nabarro: While dissociating myself from the extravagant nature of the four preceding supplementary questions, may I ask my right hon. Friend, rubbing his nose in realities in doing so, whether he realises that the great British public believes that he is deliberately trying to raise food prices in this country to Continental levels in order to lessen the blow of going into the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend disabuse the public in these matters and assure us that he is trying to bring down food prices, not push them up any higher?

Mr. Prior: I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a known anti-Common Marketeer, will have been explaining to his constituents during the Summer Recess that prices in the world outside the Common Market, where he wishes to remain, have been rising at a considerably faster rate than prices inside.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Minister aware that one of the more disquieting aspects of this matter is that he, as Minister of Food, during the weeks and months following decimalisation said that the introduction of decimal currency was having no effect on food prices? Will he admit now that it was a cardinal error to abolish the early warning system and the system of scrutinising food prices day by day, as was done under the Labour Government? Furthermore, will he recommend to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that retirement pensions should be increased, since they

have been eroded by the increased prices for which he is responsible?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir—and that is not true. The pension is now at a higher rate in real buying power than it has ever been in the history of the country. As for the right hon. Gentleman's charge on decimalisation, there is no inconsistency between what I said earlier today and what I said in September. However, it is clear that many people are still confused about the real value of the new money, and it would be unreasonable to suppose that some of the less scrupulous traders have not sought to take advantage of the situation

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage change in food prices in the last 14 months as measured by official indices; what were the figures for each of the previous six comparable periods; and what steps he is now taking in relation to the trend revealed.

Mr. Prior: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the housewives may expect that stroke to occur which was promised just prior to the General Election? Will he tell us whether he expects food prices to fall, to stay as they are, or to rise in the next 12 months? In view of the advice which he gave to the housewives at an earlier date, will he tell us the state of the market in peaches and pigeons at the moment.

Mr. Prior: As I have already explained this afternoon, it is difficult to give a forecast of food prices in the next 12 months. Certainly we can see some signs of world food prices stabilising and not going on increasing, at any rate at their present rate. What happens on the home side depends to a large extent on how we tackle inflation and get it under control.
Another factor for the hon. Gentleman to consider is that the increase in agricultural output at home, brought about by the Government's expansion programme, will be of great help in future years in keeping prices under control.

Following is the information:

The percentage changes in the Food Index between mid-June, 1970 and mid-August, 1971, and for the comparable periods of the previous six years, were as follows:

mid-June 1970—mid-August 1971 +11·6 per cent.
mid-June 1969—mid-August 1970 +4·7 per cent.
mid-June 1968—mid-August 1969 +5·2 per cent.
mid-June 1967—mid-August 1968 +1·2 per cent.
mid-June 1966—mid-August 1967 -0·9 per cent.
mid-June 1965—mid-August 1966 +3·2 per cent.
mid-June 1964—mid-August 1965 +2·8 per cent.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the recent trend of food prices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: No, but I am confident that the measures taken by the Government, together with the Confederation of British Industries' initiative to restrain price increases, will help to combat the rate of inflation.

Mr. Ashley: After that vague answer and the equally vague comments which preceded it, can the Minister tell us how his future policy on food prices will contribute to the Prime Minister's promised period of unparalleled prosperity and growth—or did he not take the Prime Minister seriously?

Mr. Prior: The answer is that the combination of the C.B.I. initiative, which the Government welcomed, the restraints imposed by the Government on nationalised industry price increases, which are very valuable, and the reductions in purchase tax and selective employment tax will all help to keep prices under control.

Mrs. Renée Short: When?

Mr. Prior: This Government reduce taxation. The other lot put it up.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will my right hon. Friend say how much of the percentage increase in food prices is due to higher costs as a result of wage inflation in terms of transport in particular and costs in general?

Mr. Prior: In assessing increases in food prices, between 30 and 50 per cent. is due to higher world prices, and the balance is due to inflation.

Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister agree that the worrying feature of the latest figures in the food index is that there is no evidence of any moderation in the rising trend of food prices? At this time of the year, we must look at the nonseasonal subsection and not at the seasonal one, which remains fairly stable Is the Minister aware that the non-seasonal group shows an increase of 2 per cent. between June and August, 1971, which is the same disastrous rate of 12 per cent. a year which occurred during the first year of Tory Government?

Mr. Prior: As I have said, world food prices account for between 30 and 50 per cent. of the increases in food prices. However, there are signs that the storm is blowing out a bit, and that we may expect a little better later in the year. With regard to inflation, which is the other side of the cost increases, the quicker and the sooner that wage settlements come down to realistic levels, the quicker we shall get on top of it.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has now made of the effect on food prices of the reduction in selective employment tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and others on 20th July.—[Vol. 821, c. 1240–4]

Mr. Dalyell: Which all adds up to the fact that the "dear old" S.E.T. was a very effective way of raising public funds.

Mr. Prior: The reduction of it by half is a good way of reducing taxation.

Mr. Barnes: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to make him disagree with the estimate which the Grocer, the trade magazine, produced earlier in the year, that, for a typical supermarket, the general reduction in price across the board made possible because of the reduction in S.E.T. was less than ½p in the £1.

Mr. Prior: The Grocer is a popular document for Oppositions to quote at Governments, and both sides of the House have experienced that. The effect on food prices is difficult to estimate, but there have been a good many reductions, particularly by leading food retailers, as a result of the reduction of S.E.T.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the increase in the average weekly food bill paid by shoppers over the past nine months; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what percentage increase has been spent by housewives on food and groceries comparing the first nine months of 1970 with 1971.

Mr. Prior: The most recent information available from the National Food Survey relates to the second quarter of 1971 when average weekly expenditure on food was £2·32 per head. This was 16p. or 7·4 per cent. higher than in the last quarter of 1970. The increase between the first two quarters of 1970 and the first two quarters of 1971 was 18p or 8·7 per cent.

Mrs. Fisher: Will the Minister tell housewives categorically that he has been unable to keep down food prices? However much they shop around, they cannot save money. What they are concerned about now is the effect that V.A.T. will have on food bills. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that the Government do not intend to put V.A.T. on food?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, made it plain that V.A.T. would not be charged on food, or that it would have an exempt rate, except for those items of food which already bear purchase tax, where he reserved his position. The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is that the figures which I have given bear out the fact that housewives have a knack of being able, as it were, to beat the cost-of-food index.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend he explicit about this matter? We all accept the undertaking that V.A.T. will not be applied to food itself, but it will certainly be applied to the distributive processes for food, which will have

the same effect generally as the levying of S.E.T.

Mr. Prior: I think that my hon. Friend would be well advised to put down a Question on that to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not correct to say that the trend is that the housewife is now buying less food for more money than she did in the past? Will the Minister give us some assurance that food prices will be held clown in future?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is not right, because the National Food Survey shows that one-fifth of the higher expenditure on food is attributable to increased consumption, particularly of meat and citrus fruits.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir G. NABARRO: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in retail food prices has taken place between June, 1970 and September, 1971, or the latest convenient date, expressed per centum increase; and what further steps he is now taking to stabilise food prices.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Gerald Nabarro.

Sir G. Nabarro: Mr. Speaker, you called my Question earlier, with Question No. 1.

Mr. Speaker: No. Mrs. Butler, to ask Question No. 21.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is so much noise in this part of the House that I thought that you had called my Question No. 20 with Question No. 1. That was not so, but as you at that time gave me the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, I will not ask Question No. 20.

European Economic Community

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings his officials have had with the Brewers' Society to discuss what effects the introduction of the European Economic Community draft regulations on hops would have on British beer.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): No formal meeting has been necessary, but there has been contact on a number of occasions between staff of my Department and of the Brewers' Society about the Community's proposals for hops.

Dr. Gilbert: In these meetings, have the representatives of the Brewers' Society at any time withdrawn from their previous statement of December last year that the Community's proposals, if introduced, and if we go into the Common Market, will mean the end of British beer as we know it?

Mr. Stodart: No, Sir. The brewing industry sees no difficulties facing it with regard to the regulations, either approved or in draft. It is perfectly capable of using a female hop, if that is necessary, to make British beer.

Sir J. Rodgers: Is not the key word in the Question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) the word "draft", and will my hon. Friend confirm that these are merely draft regulations which are capable of amendment?

Mr. Stodart: If any regulation on the seed content were passed before we acceded to the Treaty, our position would be reserved.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Whatever the position about the female hop, can the hon. Gentleman say what consultations he has had with the British Hops Board, which has carried out first-class work on this subject? What are the views of that body?

Mr. Stodart: It, too, is interested in trying to develop the female hop—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seedless"]. Very well. The seedless hop. With great respect, I think that that is naturally a female hop. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we put a few male plants among our vines. I am certain that the E.E.C. will appreciate this healthy attitude to sex.

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the effect of joining the European Economic Community on the pattern of farm production in Great Britain.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I have nothing to add to the assessment which my right hon. Friend gave in the debate on 23rd July.—[Vol. 821. c. 1853–5.]

Mr. Spearing: I am very disappointed with that reply. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in a letter to me of 16th September, his right hon. Friend told me that the full impact of the Common Agricultural Policy could not be forecast with any degree of accuracy but that any technical disadvantage to British agriculture would be offset by income to the farmers themselves? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the arbitrary imposition of European price structures on British agriculture could have an effect upon standards of husbandry? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that deserves a better statement from the Government?

Mr. Stodart: It is impossible to be precise about the future pattern of agriculture, even of an individual farm, be cause prices, costs and demands all change. I think that my right hon. Friend gave an admirable assessment in the debate, which was both detailed and full. Further than that, he could not be expected to go.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect on the fishing industry of the latest negotiations with the European Economic Community.

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the progress made in the negotiations to secure a modification of the European Economic Community Common Fisheries Policy.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the further negotiations for a common European fisheries policy.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in his negotaitions upon fisheries policy with the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he


will make a statement on the progress made in his negotiations on the subject of a revised Common European fisheries policy.

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his negotiations with the European Economic Community countries to protect the fishing rights of Great Britain's inshore fishermen.

Mr. Prior: As the House is aware, the European Economic Community agreed that changes will be required to the present common fisheries policy, particularly in regard to access to waters. They have now acknowledged to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that a new policy must establish a satisfactory new overall balance of advantage that takes account of the legitimate interests of all member States, new and old, and I share his confidence that this will lead to terms sails factory to our industry.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is of great importance to certain hon. Members in deciding which way to vote next week? Will the Government do everything possible to maintain existing British limits and, in any event, not sign any agreement which accords Britain narrower limits than those accorded to other applicants?

Sir G. Nabarro: Especially Norway.

Mr. Prior: On the first part of my hon. Friend's questiton, the answer is "Yes". I will try to expand on my answer in the debate later this week, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Strang: In view of the fact that the Community has rejected both proposals that the British Government put forward for modifying its policy, what chance is there that it will modify it satisfactorily following a vote in favour of entry? Is not it the case that the Government are asking this House to vote for a common fisheries policy which has not yet been decided but which is as much a condition of entry as are all the other common policies?

Mr. Prior: We have always taken the view that it was better to get the right answer than to take a quick decision and

to get the wrong one. From what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has reported back to this House and from the reports of the latest meetings which have been going on between the Six and the other applicants, it is clear that, given patience, we shall get the right answer.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that a team of back benchers, including myself, from this side of the House was at the E.E.C. headquarters last week discussing this very matter? I came away with the impression that we would maintain the status quo for the next five years. Certainly Norway has been assured that she will have her 12 miles. All that we ask today is that our Minister also gets for us what we understand Norway will be receiving—that is, 12 miles.

Mr. Prior: We have always accepted from the start of the negotiations on fish that the proposals which we put forward originally would have to be acceptable to all the applicant and the member countries. That position applies to day. If the hon. Gentleman is right about Norway getting 12 miles, that puts us in a very strong position.

Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the more remote parts of the country, such as Cornwall, with limited alternative employment opportunities, any decline in the inshore fishing industry would have adverse social as well as economic results? Is he also aware that we must ensure that we maintain the status quo in the absence of any acceptable new policy?

Mr. Prior: Certainly I am aware of the great importance of this matter to many constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least to the South-West. We put forward the status quo as a temporary measure, but we are aiming to get a fully agreed settlement as soon as we can because the status quo in itself does not give the assurance which we require for a long time ahead.

Mr. Warren: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the status quo alone is not enough? Will he assure us that the agreement which will be reached will recognise that we must also have proper policing over the sizes and weights of Continental meshes and trawls used in our areas?

Mr. Prior: There is no problem over the size of net or any of the other conservation methods within our 12-mile area. That is sacrosanct to us. We, and no one else, have to decide that
I think that I answered the status quo point in answer to a supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). My right hon. Friend has said that we shall not sign a treaty of accession which would commit us to the present common fisheries policy, that we shall not accept any arrangement which does not satisfactorily protect our legitimate interests, and that we shall not reach agreement with the Community without knowing the terms to be offered to the other applicant countries.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Minister has made a very important statement on behalf of the Government and it is important that he should confirm it. Is he saying that if Norway secures a 12-mile limit as a fixed term, Her Majesty's Government will not be satisfied with anything less? I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear that that is the case.

Mr. Prior: Following what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said about what Norway was hoping to obtain, I said that naturally we should expect to obtain the same terms as Norway. Certainly the terms have to be known not just for Britain when she joins but for the other three applicant countries and, for that matter, the Six member nations as well, so that we can then see that the terms are fair and equitable between the Ten.

Mr. Hughes: That is more vague than the Minister's previous reply. In any event, will he reassure the House by telling us quite clearly that the Government will not be satisfied with less than six miles as a permanent term, because any alternative would be extremely damaging to the British fishing industry?

Mr. Prior: I can certainly give that guarantee. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, but it would be far better, rather than to engage in long questions and answers across the Floor of the House now, to wait until the debate on Thursday when I will try to amplify the remarks which I have made.

Dame Irene Ward: As the whole situation appears to be extremely confused, will my right hon. Friend, when and if he makes his statement on Thursday, tell us how far we shall be able to get on fishing questions before we take our famous vote on 28th October? This is tremendously important. My constituents are quite happy about everything except fish, and I want to satisfy them, because it is not only the fishermen themselves but also all the people who support our fishing industry on the North-East coast who require proper affirmation.

Mr. Prior: I do not underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue one little bit, and I know that it is felt in all parts of the House. I will do my best on Thursday to give an answer which I think will satisfy my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of the fishing industry following the meeting with representatives of the Six in September.

Mr. Prior: My officials have continued to keep in close touch with the representatives of both inshore and deep sea fishermen. I am of course ready to see representatives whenever they request a meeting.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what limitations would membership of the European Economic Community impose upon the planting of vineyards and the making of wine in Great Britain.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: None, Sir.

Mr. Hill: Will my hon. Friend accept that that reply will be a welcome reassurance to the small but growing number of producers in this country who are planting vineyards?

Mr. Stodart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement, and I am happy at the prospect that I shall continue to be able to enjoy British sherry when I partake of my hon. Friend's hospitality.

Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) by what percentage he now estimates the annual requirement for domestic sugar production will


increase during the transitional period, if the United Kingdom becomes a member of the European Economic Community;
(2) by what percentage he now estimates the acreage necessary for domestic sugar beet production will increase for each year during the transitional period, if the United Kingdom becomes a member of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Sugar consumption in the United Kingdom is at best static; and, because of our commitment to take the full current quotas under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement until the end of 1974, there will be no scope for increased beet production before then. Thereafter we expect to share in the opportunities for expansion which the enlarged Community will then offer.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the industry is anxious that as much advance warning as possible should be given of our increased production requirements, in order to ensure that production facilities are made available in good time?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Deakins: What opportunities will there be for expansion in domestic sugar production after 1974, if we are to maintain our commitment to the Commonwealth sugar producers that we shall take much the same quantities?

Mr. Stodart: There is, as I think the House knows, no undertaking with regard to Australia, in respect of which there will be a gap of 335,000 tons to fill, and which will be phased out.

Sir J. Gilmour: In the event of the success of the negotiations at present going on about the factory in Scotland, will a quota for growing sugar beet in Scotland be available?

Mr. Stodart: The acreage quota is, of course, a matter for the Annual Price Review, but the Government would certainly not have assisted in getting discussions going between the British Sugar Corporation and the consortium if acreage were going to be a problem.

Welfare of Livestock (Prosecutions)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have been instituted

under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, regarding unnecessary suffering caused to animals; and in how many such cases a failure to observe the Codes of Recommendation for the Welfare of Liverstock was quoted in evidence.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: One prosecution has been brought under Section 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968. It resulted in a conviction. Failure to observe the Codes of Recommendations was quoted in evidence.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the many serious malpractices which the revised Codes of Recommendations are designed to prevent, it is a great pity that only one prosecution has been brought in which the Codes have been quoted in evidence? Would there not be more successful prosecutions if the Codes were mandatory?

Mr. Stodart: I think that we should look at this matter in perspective. Out of 26,000 visits by our veterinary staff in the course of a year, only 74 cases were found involving unnecessary suffering and all were resolved by the advice given. Frankly, I think that that is a better way of getting results than merely saying that we are chalking up prosecutions.

Mr. Rankin: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at or visited these little hutches in which farm animals are being housed? Does he realise that in the space which they are allowed in these little dens it is impossible for animals to escape suffering? Will he look at the matter himself and not depend on other people for reports?

Mr. Stodart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have visited many of these establishments.

Poultry Meat (Certification)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the regulation that all imports of poultry, meat and offal will have to be accompanied by official veterinary certification as to the health of the birds from which the meat or offal is derived, he will take steps to arrange for similar certification to be demanded in respect of home-produced poultry.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Overseas veterinary certification of imports of poultry meat is required to prevent the introduction of poultry diseases, especially those exotic to this country. There is not the same need for the certifying of domestic production. Public health considerations are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Tuck: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the enormous outbreaks of fowl pest, the high incidence of mareks disease and infectious bronchitis, and also of food poisoning can all be traced to home-reared chickens? Does not the Minister think that in future consumers will prefer to buy imported chickens, for which a certificate of health is required? If that were to happen, would it not have a damaging effect on the home industry?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think so. As regards fowl pest, it is forbidden to move infected birds off farms, and under the Food and Drugs Act local authorities have powers to examine all food, including poultry carcases, for human consumption. I think, therefore, that the safeguards are adequate.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the hon. Gentleman give particular attention to the health of pigeons, as we are concerned about the exotic diet of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Stodart: I think that my right hon. Friend looks very well on what I understand is the grapefruit diet.

Shell-fish (Pollution by Heavy Metals)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which body is to undertake the analysis of shell-fish in the Thames Estuary for mercury; what will be the scope of its investigations; when it is expected to report; and if lie will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: Details of the analyses of fish and shell-fish from the Thames Estuary and other areas, which were made by the Fisheries Laboratory of my Department, are included in the First Report of the Working Party on the Monitoring of Foodstuffs for Mercury and other Heavy Metals which was published on 15th October.
I have placed a copy of that Report in the Library together with a copy of the

statement I made on the day of publication.
I have accepted scientific and medical advice that there is no evidence of harm to health from present levels of mercury in food for the average consumer. Nor has it been possible to identify in this country any group of persons who, as a result of special eating habits, have suffered harm from the ingestion of mercury in the diet.

Mrs. Butler: I welcome the Report. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive a report on the longterm combined effects of mercury, lead and cadmium on human health? Will he also report progress on identifying sources of mercury pollution, and the means of stopping it?

Mr. Prior: Testing for lead and cadmium has only just begun. I think that it will take about a year to get accurate results, but I shall consider whether it is possible to inform the House of the position at an earlier stage than that. The tracing of the sources of mercury, cadmium and lead is something that we are tackling all the time, and already we have brought about a considerable improvement as a result of the tests that we have made and the information that has come to us of their sources of origin

Cereals Marketing Board

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce his plans for the establishment of a cereals marketing board.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Under the Agricultural Marketing Act, it is for producers to take the initiative.

Mr. Farr: Can my hon. Friend say what representations he has had in this connection from the producers, whether he has had a chance of considering them, and when lie intends to take the necessary action.

Mr. Stodart: We have had no representations of any kind.

Milk Production

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the shortage of milk for butter and cheese production, he will do away


with standard quantities and thus give the go-ahead for further milk expansion.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: At the last Annual Review we undertook that the method of supporting milk production, including the standard quantity system, would be reconsidered as part of the changeover to levy arrangements. Discussions with the Farmers' Unions on the standard quantity are just beginning.

Mr. Mills: Would my hon. Friend agree that the present shortage of butter demands an increase in milk production to satisfy the needs of the consumer? Is there not a very serious warning in the fact that the previous Administration allowed this production to fall away so that we are in this present position? Would my hon. Friend seek to give every assurance that the go-ahead for milk production will be given?

Mr. Stodart: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the best go-ahead for expansion is a good price. The not price ex-farm at the moment, at 19.3p, compares with 16·35p two years ago. This obviously accounts for the expansion which has taken place.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: But would the hon. Gentleman treat this suggestion with considerable reserve, bearing in mind the fact that the shortage is temporary and that a free-for-all could land the British milk producer in considerable difficulty?

Mr. Stodart: I am not at all sure that I agree that this is a temporary shortage. There is a very definite trend, certainly in other countries, towards people getting tired of milking cows on Sundays.

Cereals

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on marketing of the 1971 cereal harvest.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: There is nothing which I can usefully add to what I said in reply to my hon. Friend on 29th June and to the information available from published sources.—[Vol. 820, c. 195.]

Mr. Morrison: Would my lion. Friend acknowledge that this year's harvest has been exceptionally above the three-year average? Does his reply imply that he

is satisfied that the marketing of this very good harvest will create no problems?

Mr. Stodart: I am very glad to confirm that this has indeed been one of the best harvests ever. So far as marketing Roes, the minimum import prices are having their effect upon both spot and forward prices. The market is thus giving an incentive to store and I think that farmers do get good guidance on this from the Cereals Authority.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only has the harvest been very good in this country but that the world harvest has been very good and that, contrary to what his right hon. Friend said about world food prices still rising, the evidence is that cereal prices in the world are falling, and that this is reflected in the feedingstuffs price now paid by farmers? What steps does the hon. Gentleman and his Minister intend to take, in view of the fact that their own prognostication that world food prices would continue to rise has not proved to be correct?

Mr. Stodart: I thought that I had given my view that the Government's policy, which is one of gradually increasing minimum import prices, is having its effect and stabilising the market.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will update the information contained in his first White Paper on the Common Market.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. The July White Paper remains a valid record of the negotiations and the issues involved, and I have no doubt at all about the conclusion that the right decision for us is to join the European Communities.

Mr. Meacher: Since the right hon. Gentleman has now been forced to acknowledge that he cannot carry the Common Market decision purely on his own party votes, will he not follow his new policy through to its only logical conclusion and agree to abide by his own declared statement, in view of the clear verdict of public opinion, not to carry this country into the Common Market


without the "full-hearted support" of Parliament and the British people?

The Prime Minister: It has long been said, both by the Leader of the Opposition and by myself, that the way for opinion to be expressed on this matter is through Parliament, the traditional way.

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister what rearrangements in Ministerial functions he contemplates should the United Kingdom enter the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: As the House knows, I have already asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to co-ordinate the preparatory work that will be required in the Government, if Parliament approves the decision in principle that Britain should accede to the European Communities. All Departments are considering how their organisation would be affected; but I do not contemplate any other changes in Ministerial functions.

Dr. Gilbert: As the right hon. Gentleman disclosed a few moments ago that the free vote on his side of the House on 28th October will be totally bogus, showing how little confidence he has in getting a majority, may I ask him to tell us what rearrangements in Ministerial functions will be necessary if we do not enter the Community?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to show scant understanding of Parliamentary procedure. Any Government are entitled to ask for the support of all hon. Members in the House; and if all hon. Members were free to express their support, then perhaps we would get the best result.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Now that the Prime Minister has decided to allow his colleagues a free vote on the Common Market, may we expect that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) will be invited to rejoin the Government?

The Prime Minister: Hon. Members will vote in the way they decide best. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so envious and jealous. There is no need for that.

PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he received on matters for which he is responsible during the Recess.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since he took office on the questions of rising prices and unemployment.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has now received since 18th June, 1970, on the subject of old-age pensions.

Mr. Spearing: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the subject of the Common Market since 5th August.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Prime Minister how many letter he has received this year on the problem of unemployment.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received in the last three months on the subject of unemployment.

The Prime Minister: Since becoming Prime Minister I have received about 120,000 letters from members of the public on issues of Government policy. A number of these letters were concerned with entry into the Common Market. Pensions, the cost of living and employment. The cost of a more detailed statistical breakdown would be disproportionate.

Mr. Carter: How many people have written to the right hon. Gentleman bringing to his attention the fact that. since he became Prime Minister, the West Midlands has gone into economic decline and now shows, in employment terms, all the aspects of becoming an industrial dustbowl? What specific proposals does he have for remedying this situation?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, it is not worth the cost of going into a statistical breakdown about the nature of the list. However, on the hon. Member's particular point, as he knows, I


paid a visit to the West Midlands during the Recess, where I had a long and very valuable discussion with the planning council on the document which they themselves have produced. I would suggest to him that he does not help the West Midlands by grossly exaggerating their particular problems. But I agreed with them to study the whole question of I.D.C. arrangements and the rest of it.

Mr. Ashley: Instead of castigating union leaders as being responsible for unemployment, would the Prime Minister now accept that it is the Government's policies which are largely contributing to unemployment and rising prices? Could he now switch his sympathies from surtax payers to ordinary people, which would help the situation considerably?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of that question, the hon. Member has only to discuss with the management of firms, as I did when I visited Stoke-on-Trent during the Recess, the reasons why they have redundancies to learn that excessive wage increases are one of the reasons. There can be no doubt about that, and we shall not find an answer to the problems unless we accept that. Second, on rising prices, the Chancellor's action in reducing purchase tax and halving S.E.T. is contributing to the process which the hon. Gentleman wants. As for taxation, the reduction in the standard rate benefited all taxpayers and the generous increase in child tax allowances helped all families.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will be increasing the cost of living by handing over millions of £s to the French farmers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]
Returning to the question of the number of letters he has received from and about pensioners, is he aware that one came to him from a widow pensioner who lives in Bolsover, that he refused to reply to it and that finally this pensioner's letter was answered by a civil servant in the Supplementary Benefits Commission? Does this not show the right hon. Gentleman's total disregard for the plight of starving old-age pensioners, which can be resolved only by giving £8 to the single person and £14 to the married couple?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might have been fair enough

to have acknowledged that if a letter from a pensioner concerns the pensioner's own particular circumstances and if that pensioner requires help, then much the most practical way of dealing with it is for it to go to the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that before the Summer Recess he said it was the duty of the Government to call on their supporters to follow their policy for entry into the Common Market? Has he changed his mind about that because of the letters he has received during the Recess? If not, what other reason has caused him to change his mind?

The Prime Minister: The Government will, of course, ask their supporters to support them—including support in the Lobby—and what is more, they will get the support of the great majority of them.

Mrs. Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that when he went to Birmingham and met the West Midlands Planning Council he refused, at the same time, to meet any of the trade union delegates who wanted to see him? Is he aware that they would have told him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) told him, that in the West Midlands we have an unemployment rate of 6 per cent. and that we are particularly concerned about the many thousands of young people who, having left school, have not been able to find any employment at all? Can he say specifically what action he now intends to take, having taken no action so far, to see that the prosperity of the West Midlands is restored?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady seems to have overlooked the fact that the trade unions are represented on the Planning Council and that their representative there was one of those who spoke, who said everything he wanted to say and took part in the discussion, having previously discussed the matter with his colleagues. I was, therefore, given the considered views of the trade unions in the West Midlands.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the policy on youth unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The policy is, first, to ensure that there is an improvement in employment in the country as a


whole, which is the only way of getting more employment for youth. It is, second, to carry through a greatly improved training programme, which is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is doing.

Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if hon. Gentlemen opposite are so concerned about unemployment, they might be a great deal better employed joining hon. Members on this side of the House explaining to those who demand wage increases far in excess of anything which increases in productivity can justify the great damage they are doing to their own interests and the interests of those who have already been priced out of a job?

The Prime Minister: I have always made the point that that would be helpful, and I still believe that it would be helpful. However, as I understand it, the Opposition have now rejected their previous statutory incomes policy and have put nothing in its place.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Returning to the right hon. Gentleman's opening statement in which he referred to the disproportionate cost of answering the Questions, may I ask him whether he is telling the House that No. 10 no longer makes a weekly breakdown of the subjects of the letters that are received there? If that is still done, how much would be the cost of adding them together and so being able to answer my hon. Friends?

The Prime Minister: If I were to attempt to give an accurate reply, it would mean going through all the correspondence again to find out which letters dealt with more than one subject and to note those other subjects.

PRIME MINISTER'S LIBRARY

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister what is the cost to public funds of maintaining the library at No. 10, Downing Street.

The Prime Minister: The cost to public funds of the Prime Minister's Library is negligible. It consists of books presented by Cabinet Ministers and former Cabinet Ministers; and the use of the books is not so heavy as to require special staffing or provision for maintenance.

Mr. Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will give great satisfaction to many taxpayers who feared that they might be called upon to pay an exorbitant price for the very cheap memoirs of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition? But more to the point, can he confirm or deny rumours that the Downing Street copy of those memoirs is, in fact, in the right hon. Gentleman's own personal style—that is, that the backing is spineless to make it more easily reversible? [Interruption]—or even that it is in loose leaf form—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—to allow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."]—for easier amendment?

The Prime Minister: It is true that a copy of the right hon. Gentleman's book has not been presented to the Prime Minister's Library. However, a copy is available at No. 10. It was purchased at Government expense and is kept alongside other books of quotations.

RHODESIA

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister how many recent communications he has received from Mr. Ian Smith; and if he will make a statement.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make arrangements to meet Mr. Ian Smith in the light of the recent discussions conducted by Lord Goodman.

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told the House yesterday, as a result of Lord Goodman's latest visit to Rhodesia further useful progress has been made, and exporatory discussions are continuing. I have received no communication from Mr. Smith, and we have no plans for a meeting.

Mr. Wall: Appreciating that my right hon. Friend would not wish to follow the unfortunate precedents set by his predecessors as far as Prime Ministerial meetings are concerned, may I ask him to say whether he expects intergovernmental talks at Ministerial level to take place in the near future to settle this outstanding and unfortunate dispute?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend any indication about that. We must wait and


see how these official discussions proceed.

Sir G. Nabarro: Bearing in mind that many millions of people are deeply interested in what interpretation may be attached to his use of the word "progress", could not the House of Commons be made privy to what has occurred in the Goodman talks and be told whether the Foreign Secretary is going to Rhodesia at an early date, which has been widely speculated?

The Prime Minister: I think we are most likely to achieve the objectives we have if these discussions are carried on privately to see whether we can make progress. The Foreign Secretary has always told the House that if the position is reached when a full statement can be made, he will make one. As for his own visit, that must await a situation in which progress is made.

Mr. Michael Foot: Why should anyone in the country or anywhere else expect that the Prime Minister will stand by his declared principles on the question of Rhodesia when he has shown himself such an easy push-over on the question of the Common Market? Does he now stand by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about 48 hours ago that the vote on 28th October would be an issue of confidence, or does he stand by his statement in July that—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Question is about Rhodesia."] Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement he made in July that those with whom he was negotiating on the question of the Common Market believed that he would use his majority to try to carry the matter through? Why has he run away so easily?

The Prime Minister: On Questions concerning Europe, I think that the hon. Gentleman had better consult his leader. On questions of Parliamentary procedure on which he has need of knowledge, he had better consult his own Chief Whip. I have answered the question about Rhodesia.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On the question of Rhodesia, does the right hon. Gentleman still stand by the five principles, which he supported from this Opposition Front Bench when they were enunciated. although he did not follow the principles

through with the means to the principles in the matter of sanctions? Will he make clear now that there will he no settlement—that he will put his hand to no settlement—which does not fully honour the five principles, including unimpeded progress to majority rule, and this to be in a reasonable period of time, not spread over a large period of years?

The Prime Minister: As regards the five principles, the answer is "Yes". Our position remains the same. As regards the period of time, the right hon. Gentleman must wait and see what it is possible to negotiate, if it is possible to reach a conclusion. As far as I recall, the right hon. Gentleman never gave any indication of time for the provisional settlements which he himself negotiated.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Orme: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the interrogation of internees in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Allegations have been made about the interrogation of persons arrested in Northern Ireland on 9th August under the Special Powers Acts. These are being investigated by Sir Edmund Compton's Committee of Inquiry. When the Committee's report is available, a statement will be made to the House.

Mr. Orme: Does the Home Secretary realise that the terms of reference of Sir Edmund Compton's Committee of Inquiry are not satisfactory, and that there is a widespread demand that this inquiry be held in public and that people should be able to have legal representation, if necessary? I wish to impress this on the right hon. Gentleman, as the question of internment is leading to a deterioration of community relations in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that he wants to see them improved. Will he, therefore, alter the terms of Sir Edmund Compton's inquiry and allow these allegations to be properly investigated, which, surely is in the interests of the British Army as well as of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maudling: There is some misunderstanding about this. I wrote myself


to Sir Edmund Compton on 31st August specifically asking him to look into these particular allegations. As regards the questions of a public inquiry, I am quite certain that the inquiry by Sir Edmund Compton and his colleagues, with a statement to the House and publication of his report, is the right way to go about it.

Mr. McMaster: Does my right hon. Friend have in mind that about 125 people have been killed in Northern Ireland by the I.R.A. during this campaign, that many hundreds of others have been injured and mutilated for life, and great damage has been done? Will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to the lives of the Servicemen, police and others who are still at risk in Northern Ireland, and make sure that suspects are thoroughly questioned in order that the campaign of violence can be brought to an end as quickly as possible?

Mr. Maudling: That is a different question, though exceedingly important. No one in the House denies for a moment the need to bring an end to the campaign of terror. I am asked here about certain allegations, and I have made quite clear that these allegations are being considered by Sir Edmund Compton.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that information has been obtained from these internees which has resulted in our being able to save the lives of a number of our troops who would otherwise have been killed; and will the right hon. Gentleman realise that, so long as that sort of information continues, there are some of us who are not too concerned as to the methods used? One cannot fight an urban guerrilla with kid gloves, and it is unfair to ask our troops to do so.

Mr. Maudling: Intelligence is of enormous importance in defeating the gunman, but despite that I repeat once again that allegations of this character must be fully investigated.

Mr. McManus: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in protesting that it is a totally inadequate inquiry, but, while Sir Edmund Compton's Committee is sitting—we are told that it will report some time next month—and while all that is going on, people continue to die on the streets of Northern Ireland. chiefly as

a result of internment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Does the Home Secretary realise that the figures will show that more people have died since the introduction of internment than in the previous three years? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while Sir Edmund has been inquiring into allegations, one Liam Rogers of Warren Point, who was arrested over a week ago, has still not been produced, no one knows where this man is, and, judging from allegations and statements made as late as last night by one William Shannon, who was produced at the last moment, there is fear in Northern Ireland that Mr. Rogers is suffering the same treatment as Mr. Shannon and others are alleged to have suffered?
Will the Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—not agree also that, while Sir Edmund Compton is sitting, the British military authorities are putting undue pressure on doctors to disclose information about William Shannon? Further, will he bear in mind that, while Sir Edmund's inquiry is proceeding, the case of Northern Ireland has been brought to the legal committee of the Court of Human Rights, and this Government are in grave danger of going into serious international disrepute? All this is going on while Sir Edmund Compton's Committee of Inquiry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now asked at least three questions. The Home Secretary must have an opportunity to answer.

Mr. Maudling: On the whereabouts of the individual named, I shall certainly make inquiries. I do not for a moment accept that undue pressure is being put on doctors by the Army or anyone else. The deaths on the streets of Belfast are caused by the terrorists.

Mr. Longden: Although it is certainly necessary that any such allegations are inquired into, and although no one could do that better than Sir Edmund Compton. can my right hon. Friend say why, considering that they are made by known enemies of the State, they should be believed by so many people and, in particular, by the mass media?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir; but, when allegations of this kind are made, from whatever quarter, they must be impartially investigated.

Miss Devlin: Will the Home Secretary accept that attacks on the police forces, and, in particular, on members of the special branch in Northern Ireland, are at this time increasing due to the widespread belief that these men are engaged actively in the torture of people interned in the north of Ireland, and that, specifically, members of the special branch—a Mr. Taylor and a Mr. Henry Morrison—have been publicly named, along with two other gentlemen, one of them a Mr. Kyle, in the Press in the north of Ireland? At this moment, the allegations go unrefuted, and they are not to be adequately inquired into. If this House has any concern for the lives of the special branch of the police and the security forces in the north of Ireland, should it not take into account that those lives will continue to be at risk until the allegations are refuted?
Will the Home Secretary not agree, therefore, that it is in the interest of his own security forces, if in no one else's interest—[Interruption.] They have already been published in the Press, if hon. Members will read them. Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise, in the interests of the security forces, if no one else's, that the deaths will continue, and the retaliations will continue against brutality and torture—which people in the north of Ireland consider to be fact, unless it is refuted? Will the Home Secretary realise that Sir Edmund Compton cannot act quickly enough or publicly now, and that we need a public inquiry, an end to interrogation, and an end to internment if we want any peace?

Mr. Maudling: It is true that the murder of British soldiers and policemen is increasing in Northern Ireland, and I would hope that every hon. Member, including the hon. Lady, would unreservedly condemn that.

Mr. Rose: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is an interrogation centre at the Palace Barracks, Holywood? Is he aware that the methods of the R.U.C. are unfairly bringing British troops into disrepute? Is not it inevitable that the sort of allegations we have heard will be made when the right hon. Gentleman embarks on a policy of internment, because of its very nature? Has not this ill-conceived and

clumsily executed policy at a stroke caused more deaths in Northern Ireland than there were in the whole period before internment?

Mr. Maudling: We must leave the question of the allegations until we receive the report of Sir Edmund Compton. We debated the policy of internment a very short while ago, and I repeat what I said then, that, hideous as it is, it is a weapon that has been used in the past and is justified now in protecting society against terror.

Mr. Delargy: I have a simple question. There is some ambiguity here, certainly in my mind. The original terms of reference of the Compton Committee were to inquire into the circumstances of the arrest of the internees, and nothing else. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House his solemn guarantee that the terms of reference will now be so extended that the Compton Committee will inquire into the allegations of brutality?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. I have already said that I had a letter sent to Sir Edmund Compton on 31st August asking him to do precisely that.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the essential need now to secure what are the facts of the situation? Has not the Home Secretary now the responsibility, if he has not already done so, to ask the Sunday Times, which printed the allegations, to send them to Sir Edmund Compton? Whether the inquiry is conducted in private or in public, is it not the case—and I would hope that there is general acceptance in the House of this—that whatever methods are being practised on our own troops, and however much murder is being committed, we could not agree to depart from accepted rules of questioning those in detention, that we could not agree to depart from civilised standards in the matter? Otherwise, we become no better than those who are committing the murder.

Mr. Maudling: Sir Edmund Compton has made is clear already that he will be happy to consider the information available to the Sunday Times. I gather that arrangements are being made this very day to make sure that he gets it from the Sunday Times.

Orders of the Day — IMMIGRATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) Those not having that right may live, work and settle in the United Kingdom by permission and subject to such regulation and control of their entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom as is imposed by this Act; and indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom shall, by virtue of this provision, be treated as having been given under this Act to those in the United Kingdom at its coming into force, if they are then settled there (and not exempt under this Act from the provisions relating to leave to enter or remain).

3.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed with Lords Amendment No. 1 the following Lords Amendments, which I think are on the same point:
No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert:
( ) The rules shall be so framed that Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom at the coming into force of this Act and their wives and children are not, by virtue of anything in the rules, any less free to come into and go from the United Kingdom than if this Act had not been passed.
No. 49, in Clause 34, page 32, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
No. 50, in line 23, leave out "subsections (1) to (4) above" and insert:
 the foregoing provisions of this Act".

Mr. Speaker: If that is for the convenience of the House, I certainly agree.

Mr. Maudling: I think that all the Amendments are on the same point. They should commend themselves to the House as a whole, as they carry out something that was urged upon us at an earlier stage.
I said on Second Reading—and I was very anxious that this should be made

known—that Commonwealth citizens already here free of condition, which means, broadly speaking, all working immigrants, will not be affected. There will be a right to work where they wish, as at present, and a right to work where they wish and a right of automatic citizenship, as at present. There will be no new papers to be carried, and they will be allowed to bring in dependants. That was the undertaking I gave, and I have not departed from it in any way.
It has been suggested more than once that that undertaking should be embodied in the text of the Bill. That was not an easy thing to do. Amendments were moved in another place with that purpose in mind, but they were not satisfactory. However, we now have from another place the Amendments before us, with that purpose in view.
There are two main points. The first, on Amendment No. 1, is that people already settled here, including aliens, should have the right to come and go as they wish. The Amendment carries out our undertaking on that point.
The second point, about the immigration rules, is one made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) a long time ago. Perhaps he will chide me for taking so long to come round to his point of view. We provide that in the rules there should be a continuing right for immigrants settled here to bring their wives and children with them. It has been argued that this statutory right should be preserved, and the purpose of the second Amendment is to preserve the current statutory right to bring in wives and children under the age of 16. In practice, the draft rules make it clear that we propose to admit children of residents up to the age of 18.
By these Amendments we are giving statutory form to the undertaking I gave on Second Reading that people already accepted for settlement in this country would not be prejudiced by the Bill.
There are one or two ancillary points, such as a point on Clause 7 about deportation, and a small point later on Schedule 1, but the broad point concerns freedom to move to and fro for those already settled here and their dependants.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is it brute force or reason that


has persuaded the right hon Gentleman to change his mind?

Mr. Maudling: I never mind eating my words if I am convinced that it is in the public interest to do so. I am sure that when he was a Minister the right hon. Gentleman never allowed personal pride to stand in his way in similar circumstances

Mr. Merlyn Rees: f he Amendment was introduced in response to a Liberal Amendment passed in Committee and in response to a feeling that pervaded much of the Committee stage and Third Reading. The aim is to safeguard the position of Commonwealth citizens who had been accepted for settlement before the Bill came into force.
We have not had a great deal of time to consider the matter, but the new subsection appears to safeguard the position of aliens as well. I do not think that that point has been mentioned.
It seems to us that a laudable aim underlies the Amendment, which makes the position clear to those who are worried—and worry there is on the part of those who are here already, worry based on insecurity. The statements made by the Home Secretary in Committee and during the Bill's passage through the House did not remove that feeling of insecurity, because there is no doubt that, apart from the general political intention of the Bill, there was a party political intention behind it to give a section of the public the impression that something was being done which in fact was not being done. The Amendment clears the minds of people who are worried. It puts the matter in such a way that no one can be in any doubt about it.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that Amendment No. 2 met a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It provides that immigration rules shall be so framed that Commonwealth citizens settled here, and their families, will not be worse off. I presume that that has already been done, and is implicit in the rules already laid, with the amendments made in recent weeks in Cmnd. 4792. The Bill says "shall be so framed". Do the rules as drafted meet the point, or will there be need for further amendment?
One question has arisen time and time again and has exercised people's minds even from the days of the previous Administration. Is it still the fact that a man who is properly settled here—to use a more definite term, who is patrial, who has been here for two years—and who leaves Britain and returns to his country of origin will not lose any rights that he has provided that he returns within two years?
Arising from that question, the next question is: what is meant by "ordinarily resident"?
Overall, in the context of the later Amendments, we are glad that the Amendment has been brought from the Lords. It is a helpful Amendment. It clears the law and will tell immigrants who are here and who are to stay here that they have nothing to fear from the Bill. We support the Amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have made it clear at earlier stages of the Bill that I believe that a much greater restriction than at present applies upon the inflow of Commonwealth citizens into Britain is desirable and will prove to be desirable I therefore, as I also made clear, welcomed the fact that the statutory right of admission for wives and children as defined had disappeared under the Bill as it left this House.
I wish to make it clear that I regard this reinsertion in statutory form as undesirable. I believe that we shall come to regret this. I believe that further legislation will in consequence be necessary. I will not weary the House further. but I thought it right to put that on the record.

Mr. David Steel: In welcoming these Amendments I pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place who, by a quirk of the electoral system, are more numerous than they are in this place, and who advanced the case for Amendment No. 1 very strongly.
This is not a situation in which we should pull the Home Secretary's leg He has not changed the principle which he has reiterated many times. What he has very sensibly done is to write that principle, as we requested, into the Bill rather than leave it as a verbal assurance


from him. This will be generally welcomed and makes a minor improvement to the Bill.

Sir George Sinclair: I wholeheartedly welcome the reinstatement in statutory form of the right of children and close family relations to remain in Britain or to join the wage earners in their families who have a right to be here. This has been a cornerstone of our party's policy on this matter since March, 1965. In every pronouncement that has been made the right of families to be reunited in Britain has been restated. I am glad that this has now been put beyond any possible doubt by its being restored to statutory form.

Mr. Maudling: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. The first Amendment covers aliens. The second does not and refers to Commonwealth citizens. "Shall" means that rules under the Bill will have to contain this. The draft immigration rules at present make it necessary to admit people up to age 18. The two-year rule certainly applies to the Commonwealth at present but not to aliens.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

STATEMENT OF RIGHT OF ABODE, AND RELATED AMENDMENTS AS TO CITIZEN SHIP BY REGISTRATION

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if with Lords Amendment No. 3, which is next on the Notice Paper, we take Lords Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 22, after "or" insert: "(except as mentioned below)", Lords Amendment No. 6, in line 35, at end insert:
(1A) A woman is under this Act also to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom if she is a Commonwealth citizen and either—

(a) is the wife of any such citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) above or any such Commonwealth citizen as is mentioned in subsection (1)(d); or
(b) has at any time been the wife—

(i) of a person then being such a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or Commonwealth citizen; or
(ii) of a British subject who but for his death would on the date of commencement

of the British Nationality Act 1948 have been such a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b);
but in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above references to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not, in the case of a woman, include registration after the passing of this Act under or by virtue of section 6(2) (wives) of the British Nationality Act 1948 unless she is so registered by virtue of her marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies before the passing of this Act.
together with the Opposition Amendment thereto—in line 1, leave out "woman" and insert "person".
Lords Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 16, at end insert:
but, in the case of a registration by virtue of section 7 (children) of that Act, only if the registration was effected before the passing of this Act.
Lords Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 26, after "(d)"insert" or section 2(1A)"
Lords Amendment No. 16, in line 28, at end insert:
, unless in the case of a woman claiming to be patrial by virtue of section 2(1A) she shows that she is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is patrial by virtue of section 2(1A) apart from any reference therein to section 2(1)(c) or (d).
Lords Amendment No. 26, in page 14, line 40, after "(d)" insert "or section 2(1A)"
Lords Amendment No. 27, in line 41, after "Kingdom" insert:
unless in the case of a woman who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies the ground of appeal is that she is patrial by virtue of section 2(1A) apart from any reference therein to section 2(1)(c) or (d);
and Lords Amendment No. 51, in page 33, line 34, at end insert:
(3A) Section 1(2A)(d) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 (which was inserted by section 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, and excludes from the control on immigration under those Acts, among other persons, certain persons registered in the United Kingdom or in an independent country of the Commonwealth as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) shall not apply—

(a) to a woman registered after the passing of this Act under or by virtue of section 6(2) (wives) of the British Nationality Act 1948, unless so registered either—

(i) by virtue of her marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies before the passing of this Act; or
(ii) by virtue of her marriage to such a citizen who at the time of her registration or at his death before that time


was excluded from the control on immigration under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts 1962 and 1968 by section 1 (2) of the 1962 Act; nor
(b) to anyone registered after the passing of this Act under or by virtue of section 7 (children) of the British Nationality Act 1948, unless so registered in the United Kingdom."

Mr. Speaker: I think that we might get into difficulties if we take Lords Amendment No. 6 in this group, because there is an Amendment to that Lords Amendment. If it is the will of the House, perhaps all the others in the group should be taken together. I think that Lords Amendment No. 6 must be taken separately.

Mr. Sharples: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that Lords Amendment No. 3 is only a paving Amendment. The substantive Amendment in the whole group is No. 6. It would be difficult to have a proper discussion without taking Lords Amendment No. 6 in this group. I suggest that I now move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords" in Amendment No. 3, that we discuss it with all the others, and that we have a Division on the Amendment to No. 6, if it is wished to do so, when we reach that stage. It will be difficult to have a coherent discussion unless Amendment No. 6 is taken at the same time.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are suffering from some difficulty due to the speed at which the Bill has come from the Lords. We have no wish to prevent there being a sensible discussion. We have an Amendment to Amendment No. 6. If the procedure is as the Minister of State suggests, at what relevant point can we bring in our Amendment so that it fits into the general discussion which will already have taken place?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the Amendment can be moved until we reach Lords Amendment No. 6. I suggest that we proceed with a general discussion on the group which the Minister has suggested. I will not rule out a separate discussion, if need be, on one of them afterwards.

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, after first "or" insert (except as mentioned below)".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This group of Amendments is fairly complex, and I apologise to the House for that. The group taken as a whole has two purposes. The purpose is to meet a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) in Standing Committee concerning the position of the wives of those who are patrial.
In Standing Committee I undertook to look at this matter again to see whether it would possible to meet the point. I explained at that time that it would be a difficult Amendment to draft and fairly complex. I certainly did not overestimate the difficulties when I said that. The group of Amendments meets the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and goes somewhat further than the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed.
The second purpose of the group or Amendments is to close an existing loophole in the 1962 and 1968 Acts affecting principally immigrants from East Africa. This was a loophole pointed out on Report in this House by my right hon Friends the Members for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
The point concerning the wives of patrials is covered by Amendment No. 3 and also by Amendment No. 6. This provides that a woman who is a Commonwealth citizen—that includes a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—shall have a right of abode if she is or has been the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of a Commonwealth citizen who has a right of abode or who would have had that right but for his death before the relevant legislation—that covers a number of Acts—came into force.
The effect, in simpler terms, is that the wife of a patrial, if a Commonwealth citizen, will acquire patriality by virtue of her marriage and not, as at present, by virtue of her registration as a citizen.
4.0 p.m.
I want to make clear two points. First, this alteration applies only to persons who are Commonwealth citizens. Second, it does not subject to control anyone who is now exempt from control by reason of


registration under the legislation as it has existed up until now. A wife who has registered before the passing of this Bill, whether here or overseas, will retain her exemption from control. Neither this Amendment nor the Amendment to Clause 35, Amendment No. 51, which we are also discussing, will subject to control anyone who is now exempt.
The second of the two purposes which I mentioned in moving the Amendment is that the first and second Amendments, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and the last four lines of the third Amendment, Amendment No. 6, are also designed to ensure that a woman who acquires citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration on the ground of marriage, after the passing of the Bill, to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies does not in that way acquire the right of abode if the husband is not a patrial. The reason for that is that it would be wrong if a Commonwealth citizen, here on conditions, were to obtain the right of abode, and so exemption from control, by marrying a man who was himself a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies but was not a patrial.
As an example of what I mean by that, I cite the holder of a work permit who had been admitted from Hong Kong. If a woman were to marry him, under the existing law she would obtain exemption from control while he himself, the work permit holder, her husband, remained subject to control. In such a case the operative provision is Clause 2(1)(c), which provides for patriality on completion of five years' ordinary residence in the United Kingdom, together with acceptance for settlement here. If and when the husband acquires patriality under Clause (2)(1)(c), his wife also does so.
The first, second and fourth Amendments and the last four lines of the third Amendment, Amendment No. 6, are also designed to deal with the loophole to which I referred, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
The purpose of these Amendments is to close the gap whereby a woman who is a citizen of one of the East African countries marries a man who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies

but has no direct connection with this country. Under existing law, she has an absolute entitlement to register under Section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act, 1948. She gets exemption from control in that way. She comes here; her husband then applies to be able to come here in order to join her, and in that way he is able to jump the queue of those who are waiting for vouchers, particularly from East Africa. From information which has come my way over the last year or two, there is no doubt that this method of evading the control has been exploited, especially in the last 18 months or so, and that this gap should certainly be closed.
Another related problem dealt with by this group of Amendments, in particular by Amendment No. 11, is the position of children. Amendment No. 11 provides that registration of children under Section 7 of the 1948 Act in an independent country of the Commonwealth will give patriality and exemption from control only if the registration took place before the passing of the Act. The power to grant registration is discretionary, but it has been customary to grant it in East Africa, for example, to ensure that the whole family are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But the anomaly of the present position is that such a grant serves under the 1968 Act to give exemption from control even though the father of the family may still be subject to such control.
I think that the House will agree that this is wrong. As the law stands, it would be possible for children to be registered, to be sent here, and then for application to be made by the father for him to be able to come here and join his family who are already here. The House will agree that that is wrong. I do not believe that it has been exploited very much up to the present, but it is certainly possible to do so, and I think that the House will agree that that gap should be closed before advantage is taken of it.
I want to make clear to the House that these Amendments do not in any way take away or impair any existing rights of entry into the United Kingdom. They do not affect the position of children who are registered or who have been registered before the passing of the Bill.


The Amendments do not affect the rights of anyone who may have sought to take advantage of this loophole before the passing of the Act. The Amendments have no retrospective effect. But what they do is to stop up the loophole for the future.
We have tried to act fairly in this, and I hope that the House will agree that this is fair. Taking it together with the Amendments moved to meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich, to which I have referred, I think that this is a fair and satisfactory package.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I hope that I am following the suggestion that you made, Mr. Speaker. I will deal with Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6, and all the subsequent Amendments, all of which, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, are on the same point. I am not clear, Mr. Speaker, whether I should move our Amendment at a later stage or during the course of my remarks now.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member would be out of order if he did that now, but I will certainly allow the general discussion, and in the special circumstances, and seeing how the general discussion goes, if when the hon. Member formally comes to move his Amendment he wants to add briefly to his remarks I should allow him to do so.

Mr. Rees: Probably I asked my question slightly the wrong way. The procedure you suggest, Mr. Speaker, would suit us very well because our Amendment deals with a wider aspect.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the purpose of this series of Amendments is to do what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) asked in Committee. Perhaps it is not inappropriate that he is busy with European affairs today. That is the reason why he cannot be with us. We are grateful for the fact that his idea, which we discussed in Committee, has been given statutory form.
There is no need for me to belabour that point. It is made quite clear that a woman who is a Commonwealth citizen, including a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, shall have the right of abode if she is or has been the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom

or Colonies or of a Commonwealth citizen who has the right of abode, and that no longer will it need registration. This is a welcome concession, if that is the right word, on the part of the Government.
The hon. Gentleman made two points. He said that the gap had been closed, and made it clear that it did not alter the rights of people—not necessarily those already here—under the law as it stands now. He referred to husbands, and also to children. What happened in the past because of what has been called a loophole? The situation was generally known, in some circles at least, before discussion in Committee. What happened as a result of the 1968 Act was that the marriage of a woman to a non-belonging citizen of the United Kingdom would give her a right of entry while her husband had to stay in East Africa. So, existing rights are not modified.
Undoubtedly there were people who knew exactly what they were doing when they separated their families and then, when their families got here, raised the query as to why the families had been separated, although it had, of course, been a deliberate act on their part. Now the loophole is to be closed. Nevertheless, I hope that steps will be taken so that families can be reunited, not necessarily over-night. The law was not being broken when this was done, and now that the curiosity has been removed it would surely be right that in good time the situation should be dealt with.
As they meet a point which we asked about in Committee, the Lords Amendments are welcome. The wider point about the way in which a woman shall be treated with regard to patriality I reserve until we come to our proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. David Steel: Whilst I do not change my view on the basically wrong philosophy behind the 1968 Act, I accept that this peculiar loophole did result in extreme hardship.
There was a reason for this. In the 1968 Act the Labour Government ought to have concocted some scheme of social security help for those of our citizens who found themselves in straitened circumstances in East Africa because of the bad policies of the East African and British Governments. It was because no such arrangement was made, not even


on a par with the financial assistance given to white settlers after Kenya's independence, that many of these wives and children came here under what has been called the loophole. By doing so they could receive the financial help to which any citizen of this country is entitled in straitened circumstances—social security. That was a bad thing because those of us concerned know that there is nothing more irritating to public opinion than the fact that there are people coming here and living on social security.
While I support this change in closing the loophole, I believe that it illustrates a sorry aspect of the 1968 Act and a great defect of successive Administrations in failing to tackle the problem of financial hardship in the territories where it could have been dealt with without separation of families, without people coming here and living on social security. Although I understand that the new arrangements announced by the Home Secretary before the Summer Recess have already had a good effect in alleviating hardship in East Africa, I hope that it will not be long before we have dealt with the backlog of people waiting to come here. Until then the serious cases of hardship will not be removed finally.

Mr. Powell: I refer to the loophole mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and which will be closed by these Amendments. I wonder whether, should he have leave to speak again in reply, he will be good enough to confirm that persons who have entered through this loophole have not featured in his Department's statistics of Commonwealth citizens entering this country, and whether he would further indicate whether there has been any estimate of the numbers, however rough, of such persons who have entered through this loophole in the last year or two.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I reinforce the point put by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I welcome the clarification of the position of women under this provision. Has the Department any figures relating to what I call the non-patrial, non-United Kingdom citizens in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania? This underlines the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. As I am

well aware, as Member for Southall, where a great number of people of Kenya-Asian origin have come to settle, there are numerous cases. But I do not know how many there are. For example, there is considerable hardship where a family is in the situation where the eldest son is struggling to keep mother and brothers while the head of the household is still in Kenya waiting to come here.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us soon to what extent this situation has been relieved by the issue of extra vouchers and in future will be relieved by the issue of extra work permits, even if it means, as many of us have suggested, holding back the number of work permits which might be issued to aliens.
4.15 p.m.
The figures for aliens are not often quoted and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) should apply his mind to them. In each of the years 1969 to 1970, a total of 69,000 foreign workers were applied for by British employers. They were not Commonwealth citizens, who will come in under different terms now because of the previous Lords Amendment. I think we voice general public anxiety on this point for historical reasons and, indeed, often for economic reasons, since most males of Kenya-Asian origin are an attribute to the British economy. That cannot be said about all Commonwealth immigrants over the last 15 years but it can be said, by and large, of those who enjoyed a higher standard of living in African States and for whom we have a direct responsibility. We have an inescapable historical responsibility for their presence in East Africa.
I hope that we can soon be given figures to show how the welcome measures taken by the Home Secretary before the Summer Recess have alleviated the situation. What, to the knowledge of the Home Office and our High Commissions in East Africa, is the backlog now? How many have yet to come?

Mr. Sharples: By leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked about the position of husbands of those women already here, who exploited the loophole. I cannot give him an answer on that. I do not know at this stage how many there


are, but my right hon. Friend will look at any application very carefully and will take into account all exceptional compassionate circumstances. I must make it clear that the husbands of these women never had the right to come here at all. The wives came here first and then applied for their husbands to be able to join them, thus jumping the queue. By these Amendments, we are not taking away any existing rights of the husbands concerned, but certainly, if there are compassionate grounds, my right hon. Friend will always carefully consider them.
Wider questions were raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I should be out of order, I am sure, were I to go deeply into the whole question of the policy for entry for those from East Africa, but it is fair to say that the alteration in the number of vouchers has been generally welcomed in the House. Because we recognise that these people have a special position, we are treating them exceptionally.

Mr. David Steel: Surely it is in order to discuss my observations on the absence of any financial provisions for those in East Africa who are suffering hardship as a result of the twin policies of the East African Governments and the Government here. It was only natural that such people would use a loophole to provide subsistence for those of the family who could legally obtain it.

Mr. Sharples: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but that would not justify keeping the loophole open. I accept that there were powerful reasons for people to seek to exploit any loophole.

Mr. Bidwell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that "exploit" is the wrong word? They came here perfectly legally under the then statutory arrangements. Because of the policy of Africanisation in the States mentioned, the Asians have been squeezed out of their livelihoods and have been having to live on hard-earned savings. It would have been regarded as the best bet for the family to come here and take a chance, not in defiance of any regulations, but as legal immigrants. The word "exploit" is therefore out of place.

Mr. Sharples: "Take advantage of"; I do not want to bandy words. It was only natural that people would take advantage of any legal loophole. But it is equally right that we should seek to close any loophole giving one person an advantage over another in these circumstances.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was right to say that these wives were not included in the statistics. The reason is that they were exempt from control. It is thus not possible to estimate the number of women who may have come in in this way.
It may be helpful to say that when it was first decided that the gap in control must be closed, women of Asian descent in East Africa who were not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies were marrying men who were such citizens and who were not exempt from control at an annual rate of about 1,500. It is fair to say that the rate has since dropped off. I do not say that that is the whole of the problem, but it gives some idea of its extent.

Mrs. Jill Knight: My hon. Friend has specifically mentioned wives, but it is important to have statistics about children in order to cope with education needs. I should like to know whether there is any information about the number of children who may have entered through this loophole.

Mr. Sharples: As I said earlier, my information is that only a small number of children came in this way. As a child is exempt from control, he is not included in the statistics. One can only go on such information as one has and it is not possible to be accurate, but I do not believe that the gap has been used for many.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 2, line 29, leave out "for a continuous period of" and insert:
and had at that time (and while such a citizen) been ordinarily resident there for the last".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment concerns a matter raised on Report by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). Its purpose is to enable a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was originally admitted for a limited period, for instance, as a work permit holder, but who later applied for settlement to count the whole of his period of residence towards the five-year qualifying period for the right of abode under Clause 2(1)(c). Without the Amendment, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies was at a disadvantage compared with a Commonwealth citizen. This was pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman and I undertook at the time to consider the matter.

"(1A) A woman is under this Act also to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom if she is a Commonwealth citizen and either—


5
(a) is the wife of any such citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) above or any such Commonwealth citizen as is mentioned in subsection (1)(d); or



(b) has at any time been the wife—


10
(i) of a person then being such a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or Commonwealth citizen; or


15
(ii) of a British subject who but for his death would on the date of commencement of the British Nationality Act 1948 have been such a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b);


20
but in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above references to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not, in the case of a woman, include registration after the passing of this Act under or by virtue of section 6(2) (wives) of the British Nationality Act 1948 unless she is so registered by virtue of her marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies before the passing of this Act."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment in line 1, leave out 'woman' and insert 'person'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are also to discuss the remaining three Amendments to the Lords Amendment, namely:
In line 2, leave out 'she' and insert 'he';
In line 4, after first 'the', insert 'husband or';
In line 8, after 'the', insert 'husband or'.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with this matter. The argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) was in accord with our general philosophy that citizenship ought to mean something and should be the basis of entry to this country, and we felt that it was wrong that a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was, of course, a Commonwealth citizen should be at a disadvantage compared with a Commonwealth citizen who was not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 6 in page 2, line 35, at end insert—

Mr. Rees: At present, a woman would get exemption from immigration control if her husband had such exemption. I am being careful not to talk about citizenship. When we have come anywhere near discussing what would happen if, for example, we joined the E.E.C., we have found that we have had to talk about citizenship and nationality, and in this country we have very little legislation appertaining to that subject. What we are discussing is the right to enter the country, the right of abode. That is what is involved in the Bill, which is not a citizenship Bill.
It does not work the other way round. A husband does not get the right to enter the country if the wife has such a right. These Amendments were drawn up in some hurry last evening and their drafting may not be absolutely correct, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the spirit of the matter. We have no wish to aid bogus fiancés. It is our intention to deal with those who have a right to enter the country as patrials. Patriality is granted only to those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies of a particular sort and who have been here for five years and to those born here. We are moving away from the subject of those who, within a week of having entered the country, apply for a fiancés or husband to come here, too. We are not seeking to make it easy for the bogus; they may be dealt with as such.
We are concerned with the generality of the matter. Is it not wrong in this day and age, in this country at least, whatever the view of the rest of the world, that when two people are married to each other, although one has the right to enter the country if the other has the right to do so, the converse does not apply? We do not have to go all the way with those in the women's liberation movement. We need go only partly along the line to see that there is something wrong with this attitude, whatever might have been the view in the Victorian age. With most of us this is not the situation today. I hope the lion. Gentleman will tell us that, even given that because of the parliamentary calendar, this Bill must be law tomorrow night, the Government will put their mind to this question, because it is not what we ought to have.
4.30 p.m.
I turn to what will happen in this respect if we enter the Common Market. What is the situation there? Is it the case that if someone has the right to enter this country—and maybe in this respect we shall have to be careful—we are talking about the right to enter temporarily as opposed to those who have the right to stay? As I recall our discussion on the E.E.C., the Treaty and the directions, there are certain rights built into the Treaty which would allow people who have been here for a certain period of time to stay after the job

they had come to do has finished. What we are anxious to know is this: given what we are seeking to do in our Amendment, might it be the case that if we were to enter Europe it would be possible at least for a group of these people to come in? Out of that group, whether male or female, what would be the rights given to the woman, for in the E.E.C. such a person would have the right to bring her husband and family with her? We want to be sure that we are not dealing with something written into nationality Acts or citizenship Acts in all parts of the world and sticking to that, only to find, in a few months' time when we look at the labour laws of Europe, that we will grant to European wives who enter this country a right that we would not give to others who enter this country.
We are not concerned to help the bogus, but we are concerned with the generality of the situation in the middle years of the 20th century. There would be very few of us, there may be the odd person, who would be prepared to argue in the family circle that there is something superior about a man that ought to be put, and is put, into the laws of the land, that would give rights of entry arising out of the citizenship that we have in our Commonwealth which should not be given to the wife.
Thirdly, we are certain that, although we are doing this now, we shall not be granting those rights to European women in a few months' time, because if this is the case it reinforces our argument that we ought to do something in general to bring ourselves into the 20th century, vis-à-vis the treatment we afford to women, arising out of patriality at least, which is a concept introduced by the previous Government.

Mr. Sharples: The effect of the Amendment would be that if a man marries a woman who is a patrial here he would thereby acquire the full rights of a patrial. The Common Market point is not the position on my understanding of the situation. If a woman comes here and obtains work she is able in the same way as a man to bring her family here and her husband. That is not the same as the grant of patriality. The woman who conies here herself does not acquire patrial rights: she does not acquire the


right to come and go. She may be able to come here and work under Common Market arrangements but she does not have any patrial rights.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is an esoteric subject but the point must be looked at. After a period of time when the European woman has been here does she not acquire a right to stay in this country which is at least akin, I take it no more than that, to the rights of patriality we are granting?

Mr. Sharples: She acquires the right to stay here, yes, but that is not the same as patrial rights. When she leaves the country I think I am right in saying those rights go. The patrial right is the right that we have and that is not the same.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Can she be deported?

Mr. Sharples: I think I am right in saying that she can be deported whereas the person with patrial rights cannot. That is a significant difference. The Amendment proposes that a man would acquire through marriage the rights we are giving under these other Amendments to a woman. If husbands were to benefit from these Amendments the effect would be that any male Commonwealth citizen could obtain exemption from control and settle in the United Kingdom without obtaining a work permit by marrying a woman who was a patrial. This would open the door to an enormous number of potential Commonwealth immigrants. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not, as he has made out, a Tory concept, but a concept embodied in the legislation passed by the last Government, of which he was a member.
The position has always been that where a woman marries someone in normal circumstances, and this is the law of other countries as well as Britain, it is expected that she will live in the country of her husband's domicile. There are—and the hon. Gentleman knows it very well from the cases he dealt with when at the Home Office—cases where undue hardship would be caused by a woman having to go to live in the country in which her husband is domiciled. The hon. Gentleman knows that we treat cases of that kind in exactly the same

way as he did. Where there are compassionate reasons of that kind we allow the husband to come to join his wife who may be a resident of this country.
I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment. It would be an enormous loophole. The hon. Gentleman said he did not want to deal with the bogus cases and I accept that, but even so this would open up an enormous loophole in the immigration laws and I do not think that he would really contemplate that.

Mr. Bidwell: As the Minister knows, there are the statutory requirements which we are now considering, and the regulations under which work permits and the intake of people from overseas is arranged through the immigration control system. Can he say whether the Department has exercised or is likely to exercise any kind of priority in granting permits to applicants married to women here who have a patrial or citizen's right of abode, sometimes with children involved?
In my experience the Home Office has now and again bent the rules perhaps when we have had a case of a woman who had married abroad, say in India, and her husband being allowed to come into this country when the general rule was that the woman should go to India. Can the Minister say whether the Department will consider, perhaps not in statutory form, according priority for work permits within the availability of labour and occupations to the husbands of such women?

Mr. Sharples: It would be wrong to do that and to give that undertaking. We had to treat each case on its merits. When there are special compassionate grounds one makes an exception, but the normal rule, applied by both governments, is that a woman is expected to go to the country in which her husband is domiciled. It is not normal for a married woman domiciled here to be able to bring her husband here to work. It would be wrong to give the impression, and I do not wish to give it, that we would want to give priority to these cases. There are other people who have very strong reasons for wishing to obtain the limited number of work permits.

Mr. David Steel: I am not over-impressed by the Opposition Amendments. I can see that they have a case,


on "women's lib" grounds, for saying that there should be equal rights for women in marriage as for men. I accept that as a general principle. What we cannot do is unilaterally change that principle in this country if it is the accepted rule elsewhere. It would be unwise for us to do that. If the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) wished to assist in an international women's lib campaign to bring about equality of status, which in principle would be hard to resist, then I would join him. But I do not see how we in this country can change such a fundamental principle if our citizens going abroad continue to be treated differently according to whether they are male or female.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: With permission, I should like to make a few remarks.
I thought I had made it clear that, because the Bill is concerned not with citizenship but with patriality, our Amendment did not have anything to do with citizenship except in a remote way. We are concerned with the right of abode, which is the right to enter this country. When one dealt in the past with cases concerning people who had been in this country very briefly and who for genuine reasons wanted to bring their fiancés to live here, one did not operate immigration control on the basis of patriality. The bases of patriality are in Clause 2 and we have debated them at some length They are that a person
is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies … by birth, adoption, naturalisation or registration … or …
(c) he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has at any time been settled in the United Kingdom … or
(d) he is a Commonwealth citizen born to or legally adopted by a parent who at the time of the birth or adoption had citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies …

What we are concerned about is that patriality now gives the right to enter this country. One can get pathological about the Common Market, but if a woman from the Continent of Europe has the right to enter this country and to bring her family with her, this is a right denied to people with citizenship, even though citizenship is only the basis of patriality.

I recall the Home Secretary telling as that the concept of patriality as it appertained to men would not mean an increase in the number of people coming to this country. He said, "Why should patrials in different parts of the world suddenly start flocking to this country?" What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—or in reverse. Surely there would not be a large number of women trying to come to this country.

4.45 p.m.

We feel strongly about this matter in principle. We are not talking about citizenship because the Bill does not talk about citizenship. We have been told time and again that we can do what we like about immigration control, regardless of what the rest of the world does about it. Each Commonwealth country can do what it likes about immigration control, and this is one of the conventions of Commonwealth conferences, because immigration is not discussed, although I believe that citizenship should be discussed. The Amendment gives us the chance to allow women to have the same rights as men.

Mr. Dan Jones: I hope that the Minister is aware that there is a Royal precedent for the terms of the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230. Noes 239.

Division No. 479.]
AYES
[4.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Albu, Austen
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.


Allen, Scholefield
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Concannon, J. D.


Beaney, Alan
Buchan, Norman
Conlan, Bernard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda




Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pardoe, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Delargy, H. J.
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire E.)
Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John


Eadie, Alex
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (KilmarnocK)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever Rt Hn Harold
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, Tom
Lewis Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Henry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Steel, David


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Swain, Thomas


Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E )


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Tinn, James


Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Tomney, Frank


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marsden, F.
Torney, Tom


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tuck, Raphael


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Urwin, T. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Grant, Geroge (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wainwright, Edwin


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward
Wellbeloved, James


Hamling, William
Molloy, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hooson, Emlyn
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Houghton Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Bert



Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. John Golding and


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Burden, F. A.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Body, Richard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Astor, John
Bossom, Sir Clive
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bowden, Andrew
Carlisle, Mark


Awdry, Daniel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bray, Ronald
Cary, Sir Robert


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brewis, John
Chapman, Sydney


Balniel, Lord
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Batsford, Brian
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Chichester-Clark, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Clegg, Walter


Benyon, W.
Bryan, Paul
Cockeram, Eric


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Cooke, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony
Coombs, Derek


Blaker, Peter
Bullus, Sir Eric
Cooper, A. E.







Cordle, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cormack, Patrick
Kinsey, J. R.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Antony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Lane, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dean, Paul
Legge Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Le Merchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Dixon, Piers
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sharples, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eyre, Reginald
McLaren, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley
Smith Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Soref, Harold


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Spence, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maginnis, John E.
Sproat, Iain


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Foster, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fowler, Norman
Maude, Angus
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fox, Marcus
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife. E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Gowor, Raymond
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Tilney, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mudd, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gummer, Selwyn
Murton, Oscar
Trew, Peter


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom
Vickers, Dame Joan


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John
Waddington, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Qnslow, Cranley
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Heseltine, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow. W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk S.)
Page, John (Harrow. W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Holt, Miss Mary
Peel, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wilkinson, John


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Winterton, Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M L.
Woodnutt, Mark


James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 7 in page 2, line 36, leave out "father" and insert "parent".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we discuss Lords Amendments No. 8 and 9:
In page 2, line 36, leave out "father's" and insert "parent's";
In page 2, line 38, leave out "father's" and insert "parent's".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They may be, if that is convenient to the House, and Lords Amendments 8 and 9 can then be taken formally.

Mr. Sharples: The opening words of Clause 2(2) makes special provision in


regard to the patriality of persons who are born after their father's deaths. The effect of the subsection as introduced was to provide that in a case where subsection (1) requires a parent to have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of a person's birth, it is sufficient for the father to have been such a citizen at the time of his own death.
These Lords Amendments apply this provision also to the birth of a child—in the rare circumstances—after the mother is dead.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This seems to us good legal sense, because as was said in another place, the courts do act inconceivably on occasions.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 2, line 45, after "Kingdom" insert:
and similarly with references to birth in any of the Islands;".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment to Clause 2 (2)(b) which relates to births of persons on board a ship or aircraft. If the ship or aircraft is registered in the United Kingdom or owned by the United Kingdom Government birth in it counts as birth in the United Kingdom for the purpose of acquiring or transmitting the right of abode. In its original form Clause 2 (2)(b) did not cover birth in a ship or aircraft belonging to one of the Islands. Since birth in one of the Islands can confer patriality it is right that birth in a ship or aircraft belonging to one of the Islands should likewise do so. That is the effect of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This seems good sense. The Government of this country are acting on behalf of the Islands in respect of patriality and, therefore, of right of abode. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, if not now later, whether the agreement of the Islands had to be obtained for this to be done? It may be a small point but it is of value for us to know this.

Mr. Sharples: With the leave of the House. I think I am right in saying that the agreement of the Islands was obtained for the extension of the right of patriality to a person who is born in the Islands. All the Amendment does is to extend that to a ship or aircraft belonging to one of the Islands, which is a much narrower point.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 3, line 20, leave out "expression" and insert "word".

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We fully support the Minister in going quickly over drafting Amendments, but will he explain to us what is involved here? There has been a change here; "word" has been substituted for "expression". Given what went on in our discussions on patriality, is this simply drafting? Is there no fundamental reason underlying it?

Mr. Sharples: With the leave of the House, I can give an assurance to the hon. Gentleman that there is no fundamental reason at all. This is purely drafting. It was thought that the alteration made better reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR REGULATION AND CONTROL

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 3, line 36, after second "time" insert:
(and as soon as may be)".

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 14, in page 4, leave cut line 11 and insert:
so that the statement of those changes be laid before Parliament at latest by the end of the period of forty days beginning with


the date of the resolution (but exclusive as aforesaid).

Mr. Maudling: These two Amendments deal with the question of parliamentary control of the immigration rules. As the House will recall, it was decided on principle at an earlier stage in the passage of this Measure that the negative procedure should be adopted, and this was confirmed in the other place. These Amendments exercise a certain amount more control on the Secretary of State in the rather unusual circumstances of this particular negative procedure.
The point, as the House is so well aware after many discussions on it, is that one cannot be left for a period of time without any rules at all. That is why it is provided that, while the rules are to be laid before the House and can be negatived, they continue to have effect.
The way in which we propose to meet this point, in so far as it is possible to do so, is to make sure that if and when rules are disapproved of the Home Secretary cannot just ignore it but has to submit a further statement to the House within a stated period of 40 days. I think that this is the best way of dealing with the situation.
As the House is aware, these are rather unusual rules. They have not in the past been subject to parliamentary control. We have made them agreed on principle subject to negative control, and we think that these Amendments proposed in another place somewhat strengthen the power of the House over the Executive.

Mr. Peter Archer: We have indeed made progress since the Bill was first introduced. In the Bill in its original form the Home Secretary was given power to make a statement of the rules over which the House had no control at all. At the first sitting of the Committee the Minister of State did the best he could in the circumstances by assuring us that:
It would not be possible for my right hon. Friend, or any successor, to alter the directions given to immigration officers without informing Parliament that he was doing So."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 18th March, 1971; c. 44.]
Some of us felt that we had been returned here by our constituents for more positive purposes than to be informed of what the right hon. Gentleman was doing.

Admittedly, in Committee the right hon Gentleman finally allowed himself to be persuaded by arguments and he agreed to introduce a form of parliamentary control, although, as he has just rightly said, it was limited to the negative procedure Some of us were not happy about that, and would have preferred the affirmative procedure for reasons which were elaborated at the time and since in another place and which I will not weary the House with again tonight.
The answer of the Government was that that solution would not be sufficiently flexible to meet a situation where the House was not sitting, where there was a sudden emergency which demanded instant Government and where it was not possible to convene the House in time. It was said that in that situation we might even be left without any rules at all. In these circumstances we have not persuaded the right hon. Gentleman to go further and to agree to an affirmative procedure.
The agreement which we wrung from him in Committee itself raised a number of problems. Supposing that Parliament disapproved a statement of the rules? Even at this late stage some of us are left a little puzzled as to what is the difference between laying rules before the House and laying a statement of the rules. Does "a statement" mean a factual, textual account of what the rules will be? If that is so, why not lay the rules before Parliament? If it is merely a statement about the rules, how informative does the statement have to be, how detailed and how much does the House benefit from seeing it?
If the House disapproves of that statement, then the effect of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman introduced in Committee was that the rules would not be invalidated. All that would happen was that the Home Secretary would merely have to make another statement and lay it before the House as soon as may be. We were left wondering what was meant by "as soon as may be". But, outside what was "as soon as may be", what happened if he did not lay a statement as soon as may be? Did we go to the Divisional Court and seek an order of mandamus? Did we invite the court to decide what was "as soon as may be" or, alternatively, did some individual at some subsequent stage


submit to the court that, because the Home Secretary had not laid another statement as soon as may be, the original rules were invalid? All these questions were left awaiting a solution.
We put forward at the same time another question. Assuming that it was open to the House to disapprove of the Home Secretary's statement, what actual power did that give to individual Members of this House? Presumably we set down a Prayer to disapprove of the statement. That Prayer is valueless unless parliamentary time is afforded to debate it. Presumably the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman introduced to the House a few moments ago was intended to meet the former difficulty, and I accept that he has gone some way towards meeting our problem, even if perhaps I sounded a little less than gracious at the beginning of my remarks.
There is a need, obviously, to balance the requirements of flexibility to deal with sudden emergencies and to ensure that there is not a period when there are no rules, against what for many of us is still a fundamental fact of parliamentary Government, that rights of vital importance to a lot of people are embodied in these rules and that Parliament is entrusted with the task of protecting these rights. We have discovered during the passage of the Bill how many of those rights are in fact embodied in the rules. Some of us would have been happier if more of them had been embodied in the text of the Act.
We learned, very surprisingly, only a few days ago that a matter on which there was a great deal of discussion in this House and which was regarded as very important by a number of immigrant organisations, civil rights organisations, many of the people to whom it would apply and many hon. Members was at last to be resolved in the way in which we have invited the right hon. Gentleman to resolve it at an earlier stage, but resolved not in the context of the Bill but in the rules.
There is the question whether immigrants, having arrived hot-foot in this country, perplexed and bewildered, are going to be ask right at the beginning to register with the police. I do not propose to enlarge on that question now but I am worried a little because the

House will never be invited to debate this matter, since it is to be dealt with by a change in the rules, and at some stage someone could move a Prayer to disapprove of the rules, with all the consequences that we have been discussing up to now and leaving all the problems still unsolved.
We are still left with the major difficulty: how do we ensure that if a Prayer is set down it will be debated and the House will have an opportunity to disapprove of the rules? This was discussed at some length in Committee. I cannot resist repeating what was said in a special Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in the Session 1970–71:
Until fairly recent Sessions, it was the practice of the House that time was found for a debate in the House on all motions praying that statutory instruments be annulled;
That is not even a statutory instrument.
if for any reason time could not be found within the forty days praying time, it was the convention that time would be found for a motion in similar terms to be debated … In recent Sessions the practice of the House has changed. It is now not uncommon for prayers to remain undebated either 'in time' or 'out of time'.
As we shall no doubt be told if we press the right hon. Gentleman, this is not his province; it is the province of the Leader of the House. But I suspect that the Leader of the House might listen with deep respect, as we all do, to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, and it would help us if we could be given an assurance that when a Prayer is set down to annul the rules laid under this Bill, every effort will be made to find time for a debate not months after it has been set down but before the position of too many people has been affected by the rules.
It might be that we on this side of the House could have found a solution to this problem. I cannot resist saying this. I know it is a problem which confronts all Governments. We thought at one stage that there would be something like a week between the time when we were confronted with these Amendments and the time when we debate them. In fact, we have spent the last two days getting documents in such form as they happened to be at that moment, trying to compare them with former documents and trying to ascertain in some detail what we would


be discussing tonight. That was no one's fault; perhaps everyone was trying to be as helpful as possible. But some of us cannot help reflecting that this is not government by steamroller; it is government by making a dash for it, and this is not the best way to ensure that these matters are debated. At every stage debate has been well repaid in terms of further amendments, further concessions and improvements to the Bill. If a little more time had been given, the Bill might have emerged finally as a much better instrument than it is, although some of us have accepted from the beginning that it is far short of perfect and that it is very difficult to perfect it.
We on these benches will not divide against this Amendment. It represents a very real concession from the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope I have not been too ungracious about it, but some of us are left with the problem how we are to protect effectively the interests of our constituents and others who have entrusted their rights to us, and we shall welcome any help that the right hon. Gentleman can give us.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In introducing the Amendment it was suggested that it would lead to greater control by Parliament over the Executive. This matter caused great concern in the Standing Committee where we spent a great deal of time discussing the various procedures which were to be used. Some of us felt that the different procedures were certainly far from satisfactory because it meant that there was very little control by Parliament over the Executive. Recent events have shown this to be so.
I do not think anyone on this side of the House cavils at the flexibility shown at the very last minute in the other place when the requirement for registration with the police was changed. What worries me is that whilst we spent hours arguing in great detail and with great passion on both sides about this question of registration with the police, suddenly it can be changed by the rules. We are told that the rules have to be laid before the House, and all the rest of it, and yet the rules are not before us today even in their modified form. We have the modified version in Cmnd. 4792

but that version does not refer to recent changes mentioned in another place. So the flexibility which the Home Secretary and his colleagues in Committee assured us was necessary has certainly proved to be necessary. Apparently without even the other place being officially told that the rules were to be changed, the Press was able to tell us that the rules were changed. The only information that we have comes either from the Press or from a perusal of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Lords.
My point of view with regard to registration is met, although it does not go as far as I should like, because aliens are not included. However, that is neither here nor there. It seems that it is far better to have these provisions written in the Statute rather than having a system of rules outwith the Statute. That is why we were pleased to find the first of the Amendments on the question of access to this country of families of people already here.
We fought in Committee for a long time to get this procedure adopted but we were told that it was unnecessary. We were given the same story as we were given today, that these things can be done by changing the rules. The important point to me is that whilst this change which we are discussing satisfies the point of view of myself and my hon. Friends, the opposite point of view can just as readily be met. It is easy for the Government to change this question of registration back to what it was, because the Bill as it stands leaves the powers of registration of Commonwealth citizens, and we object to this.
Other things are presented to us which can he changed by the Home Secretary, and I should like the Home Secretary to explain a little more clearly how these changes can be discussed by the House. I should like to know specifically when we can discuss this change in the rules which was announced in the Press and in the other place. How do we get a discussion and possibly a vote on it?
These are very important matters in relation to parliamentary control. One is constantly told about different legislation coming forward which is broad and general in character, only the details of which are left to be effected either by Statutory Instrument or by some other means. We are told that changes of


policy can be questioned only under a certain procedure.
Although I would not seek to press this matter to a Division, I am not sure how the additional 40 days, and possibly 40 nights, will strengthen parliamentary control. I do not think it is good enough. It is a pity the Government did not give way during the Committee stage and allow us by way of Amendment to write into the Bill some of the matters which they are now putting in by Amendments at this stage of the Bill and also by seeking to change the rules. Had such changes been proposed by the Government during the Committee stage, the whole of the immigrant community would have accepted them earlier.
This raises a serious point. Does it mean that changes in the rules will come about, not because of parliamentary pressure or control, but because of outside extra-parliamentary pressure? There is no doubt that it was not the speeches which I and my colleagues made on the matter of registration which made the Government change their mind; it was outside pressure, particularly pressure in the Press. These are the things which, I am forced to conclude, make people change their mind. This is bad for the status of Parliament and for the people who are prepared to spend hours in Committee upstairs discussing legislation. It is far better to have changes brought about in the House and in Committees of the House rather than through outside pressure. This is the difficulty into which the Government have landed themselves by the flexibility in the rules of procedure.
I hope that we may have assurances that when the Government next seek to bring forward a Bill of this character—and certainly after entry into the E.E.C. we shall be back on the treadmill of citizenship and its relation to the Immigration Bill—they will adopt a different style of procedure, with a little more giving on the Government side and a little less defence of what apparently was an Establishment position.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for intervening in this debate, because I spent most of the parliamentary session dealing with other

relations, namely industrial relations. I was thereby prevented from taking part in the debates on the equally important subject of race relations.
It seems to me that the two matters overlap. I am concerned that, in spite of the wording of the Amendment and the requirement of 40 days beginning with the date of the Resolution, what we had seen is not government by statute or Resolution but government by leaks or statements to the Press on a matter of the utmost concern, namely, the question of registration. It would appear to be extremely dangerous that the Secretary of State can make further changes in rules merely by informing the Press of such changes, rather than by coming to the House and saying what those rules are. The proper way in which to deal with this matter was to have written into the Bill exactly what the rules were to be on registration.
We on this side of the House have throughout been opposed to the very principle of registration, and we are at least thankful for small mercies in that registration is no longer to be with the police, but with the Department of Employment. In that context I express some concern as I have a special interest in this matter.
The Bill should contain within its provisions, rather than in some regulation or rule, some guidance about the position in which labour exchanges will find themselves in regard to staff and provision of buildings. Where there are large concentrations of immigrants there should be provisions covering those people who will be engaged in interpreting for and in aiding in other ways immigrants who find themselves in this sort of situation. These matters should be clearly set out in the Bill and are matters of real concern not only to the Home Office but also to the Department of Employment.
We have had from the Government no estimate of the additional cost of administering registration under the Bill or under the rules subordinate to the Bill. Those are matters which should have come before Parliament and which should not be left to the Minister to be covered by announcements in newspapers. This is particularly relevant at a time when the labour exchanges are already under great


strain because of the policies of the Government which have led to almost a million unemployed.
We are also concerned about whether the existing structure of the labour exchanges is such that it will permit the easy slotting in of this extra function, and we should like to know how this will work. In addition to the Home Office, the Department of Employment should be answering on these matters.
Happy as we are at the ending of the principle of registration by the police, we feel it is not good enough for the Home Secretary to come along and make vague statements and move vague Amendments when this involves the work of another Department about which no anouncement has yet been made. I hope an announcement will be made so that it will be possible to debate these matters in full at a later stage.
What will be created under these rules will be two classes of immigrants. Those who are already here and who will not have to register will be divided from the immigrants who are not yet here and who will have to register. This is a matter on which certain High Commissions have expressed a great deal of concern since this will divide one from the other in their own communities. Certainly the trade unions must be more than concerned at the idea of a second-class status for some workers here. This is a form of sufferance in the context of another Bill, which allows people to have the right not to join a union when they will be subject to pressure by their employers by reason of registration. Yet none of this can be debated in full in this House because it is not part of the Bill. We shall have to wait for subordinate legislation and rules. This is to be left to the good sense of the Home Secretary. Lately certain other matters have been left to the good sense of the Home Secretary. and we know what the results have been and I shall say no more about that.
It is most unsatisfactory for the Home Secretary to put forward an acceptable Amendment in itself and then to go entirely against the spirit of that Amendment by announcing quite welcome changes in another context without coming before the House and laying Regulations and allowing them to be debated

in full so that the House may know he full implications of registration.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I hope that the Minister who is to reply on behalf of the Government will take the opportunity of explaining the rules and will say how the Home Office will publicise what it intends to do about altering the Regulations from time to time. Anybody with connections in the Commonwealth will share with me the utter distaste for this Bill and the restrictions which these provisions and Regulations put on people who come to this country and who wish to work here. Anybody who has tried to assist people of this sort wishing to work in the City of London and in other places will know all about the sheer frustration of trying to deal with the Home Office on these matters.

Mr. Maudling: I should be quite happy to deal with complaints about the Home Office and registration, but under the rules of order, I do not see how I could deal with them on this Amendment.

Mr. Harrison: Then may I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give us some indication of how we shall be able to safeguard the position when it comes to a proposal to alter any of these Regulations? I hope that he will assure us that we shall not just have, as we have seen recently when there has been a variation, some form of statement in the Press instead of a proposal being put before this House.
The Treasury Bench seem very anxious to help you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep order. I do not wish to stray outside the bounds of order. I want only to protest about the way in which Regulations have been carried out previously and about the restrictions that there are in these present regulations.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I wish to support the remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison). He has expressed doubts, anxieties and uncertainties which are not confined to this side of the House. In Committee, certain hon. Members opposite would have expressed similar doubts and uncertainties, but perhaps from time to time they were stifled from doing so.
In these rules we have various concepts which should more properly have been enshrined in the legislation itself. They touch upon matters which will be of enormous importance to the immigrant population residing here. But many hon. Members are satisfied that there is to be no effective parliamentary control of the rules, notwithstanding the mitigation which has been introduced into the legislation by the Home Secretary. The fact is that there is no effective parliamentary control, and we have a situation where a mere statement has to be placed before the House. We cannot take effective action to negative the rules. We can only negative the statement and, as has been said already, if the statement were negatived, the Home Secretary could simply put another statement before us, as a result of which we should be back to stage one.
That there is great uncertainty in this area is exemplified by certain answers to questions by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in another place. When asked about the immigration rules, he said:
The immigration rules will be subject to parliamentary control. Therefore, unless Parliament agrees with him, there is no question of the Home Secretary of the day suddenly changing the rules."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 702.]
However, that is not right. As the Bill is drafted at present, the Home Secretary can change the rules at any time he likes. It may be that the present Home Secretary will take a more liberal view than certain other Home Secretaries in Conservative Administrations, but we cannot rely on that sort of situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham also said that, if Parliament did not agree with the Home Secretary, it could negative the rules. But, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) pointed out, that is inaccurate, too. If the Government do not know what they are talking about—that is not an unusual state of affairs for this Government—when it comes to interpreting rules which are so vitally important to many hundreds and thousands of our people, it is a matter about which Parliament should be desperately anxious.
There is no doubt that this situation has been highlighted by the way in which the Government, in their convoluted manner, have changed the rules with regard to registration. We were not able to debate the change and neither were Members in another place, once the Government had made their decision. What sort of democracy is that? How are we to debate this matter? How are we to determine whether this is an effective way of dealing with the position? After all, it was the Home Secretary who, day after day, asserted that this could not be done, that it was a ludicrous proposition, that he had investigated with his Department every possible way of dealing with registration and had come to the conclusion that registration with the police was the only practicable proposition, despite all the fears of the police and despite all the fears of the Community Relations Commission and other organisations of that character. Suddenly, without warning to anyone, it is all changed. It is a remarkable state of affairs.
What has governed the right hon. Gentleman's thinking on that point? If he can do it with regard to this matter, he can do it with regard to anything, and we shall be given no adequate opportunity to debate changes which may be of vital importance to many people. The House is entitled to an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, which he has refused so far, of how the rules will work, what they mean, and what protection hon. Members will have in ensuring that the rights of their constituents are represented adequately in this House.
It goes without saying that if we had had the affirmative procedure, many of these rules would have been changed. It is interesting to note that the affirmative procedure applies to the Code of Industrial Relations Practice. If the affirmative procedure can be embodied there, why cannot it be applied here? Again we have had no effective explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. Although he has made certain concessions, and although he has tried to represent to the country that he is a man of great liberal distinction, the fact remains that this Bill will never become a perfect instrument. It is a rotten Bill, it has been introduced by a rotten Government for rotten motives, and nothing can mitigate that state of affairs.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Before calling the next speaker, I remind the House that this debate has ranged fairly wide. I draw the attention of the House to the Amendment and to the Clause to which it applies.

Mr. Powell: My remarks will be in accordance with your reminder. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We find ourselves in a difficulty, and it is one for which our procedure does not always make provision. It is a general principle that when this House parts with a Bill and sends it to another place it does not again concern itself with the contents of the Bill or the arguments which have arisen upon it unless proposals reach it from another place for that which it has passed to be amended. If we did not have that rule, it would be intolerable that, subsequent to our Third Reading, it should be at large for hon. Members to debate matters which have gone through all their proper stages in this House. Yet here we are confronted with a case which is out of the ordinary course. There is a provision in Clause 3 which was the subject of debate not only on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" but on Amendments moved to alter the text of the Bill.
When the Bill goes to another place an announcement of policy is made there, but with the intimation that that change in policy, though it goes to the root of the matters which were discussed in a Committee of this House and again on the Floor of the House, does not require an alteration in the Bill.
Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are absolutely right, and you would be right in reminding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is improper—since there is no proposal before us from another place to change the Bill—for that matter to be debated. Therefore, all that we can do—and this is not necessarily a criticism of the Government—is to register our sense of disturbance that a matter which, rightly or wrongly, was decided one way on the text of the Bill when it left this House, has now been announced to be dealt with in the opposite way in such a manner that this House, though it has the Amendments

in connection with which that announcement was elsewhere made, cannot, within the rules of order, address itself to it. I believe that that at least ought to be put on record before we part with the Amendments.

Mr. D. Concannon: I shall not keep the House very long, and I hope not to stray beyond the bounds of order.
It seems that the two Amendments pass some parliamentary control to the backbencher as against the Executive. That is something of which I am always in favour. Because of certain events which have taken place in my area over the weekend, I should like an assurance that these new rules will cover the situation. Certain rumours have been flying around Nottinghamshire over the weekend This concerns another secret document. I seem to be laying my hands on a number of Government secret documents and I am making quite a file of them. The Immigration Control Association claims that it has heard a leak by two civil servants over the telephone—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not test the House, far less the Chair, to this extent. I hope that he will have observed what has just been said both by the Chair and by hon. Members.

Mr. Concannon: I am coming to the situation. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall be through in one moment.
It is very difficult when one has not served on the Committee and has been so busy during the last Session with other Committees. I had a tremendous amount of work to do on other Committees in the last Session.
I know that the rumours in my area have been dispelled by the Home Office. However, I was wondering whether, if anything of this nature came forward, there would be provision, within the rules of the House and within the Amendments, for me, as the representative of my area, to challenge the statements or new rules which were coming into effect.
The statements which were flying around are of great importance to my area. The Immigration Control Association has said that the Home Office is proposing to make immigrant reception


areas of certain towns in the East Midlands. I should like to know whether these rules will cover the point that at least Members of Parliament for the areas concerned will be able to challenge them.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Bidwell: I fully accept that the debate must necessarily follow extreme limitations. I think that the House also accepts, as it often does in some respects, the wisdom of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and I accept it in this regard. But the House of Commons, notwithstanding the limitations of those general edicts, is entitled to exhibit its anxieties on a matter which ought to assist the Government.
We recently passed an Amendment restoring the statutory right of Commonwealth citizens coming here to work to bring their wives, children and dependent relatives. I take it that means those over 65 years of age, because of the words now written into the Bill. I stress the extreme importance of the Home Secretary's coming to grips with the principle which has so far been stated, said because he can go some way to relieving anxieties in immigration area communities.
We know that the change in the regulations, which has been announced elsewhere and was referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), has come about partly as a result of widespread pressures, partly as a result of the very tough debate which we had in Committee, but a great deal, too, as a result of what has been said in another place. I thought at one time that we might abolish the other place, but I am having second thoughts about that because of the progressive development in its attitude on the Bill. In that regard the Government have made a headlong retreat.
It is now important to go a step further. Under the regulations the Home Secretary will not have to lay the statement of any changes before Parliament before the end of 40 days. Or do I take it that he must and that, therefore, on the negative procedure, we shall be able to debate the whole method? We should like to know whether that is so

when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate on the Amendment.
The Home Secretary now has something different from what the Minister of State had in Committee when talking about the possibility of regulations requiring a work permit holder from a foreign country being on a kind of probationary system, first of one year and then for an extended period of three years. I do not know whether that kind of regulation is still in contemplation. It is important to lay it before people of national and ethnic origins which distinguish them in this country by virtue of the pigment of their skin. Their relationships with the authorities and, more especially, with the police—that is why the Police Federation adopted the attitude that it did—have some bearing on the change, and I welcome it. So far as it has gone, it has been an enormous relief to feelings, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on that score.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to heed the fact, however, that with the restoration of the statutory right of dependent relatives to join the breadwinner here it will be difficult to follow through any concept of the guest worker, which many of us have feared. Under the regulations, such a man had to do this probationary period of four years, without the right to have his family join him, and was then kicked out, having suited the purposes of British employers. We have had an unending procession of such labour in Britain. We cannot have that now, and I welcome it, because it has been my great fear. However, we are entitled to have far more detail on the whole question of registration in this regard.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Before the Home Secretary replies I should like to ask one question. I believe that this is the appropriate place at which to put it. I should like to know whether, in the power which will now be given under the amended subsection, there will be provision to deal with the question of the East African Asians arising out of the decision of the Court at Strasbourg.
I raise the issue because, so far, the Government have made no announcement about what will follow from the inquiries that they have made in the light of the observations that fell from the lips of the Court at Strasbourg. Those who


have been following this piece of litigation with interest are anxious to know the Government's views, and how they propose to reconcile the observations of the Court with the provisions of the 1968 Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member was in the Chamber when I expressed my views about the debate. I hope that he will not start afresh to test the Chair.

Mr. Lyon: I hope that I shall never transgress any of your Rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply seeking information about the regulations to be made under the Act, dealing with the administration of the Act. If, in due course, the Home Secretary says that the regulations will not be wide enough to cover such a change, he may be able to tell us how he proposes to make the change. It is on that basis that I pose the question.
The question that I have asked is pertinent, and it ought to be asked at some time during this debate on the Lords Amendments because no other opportunity is available to us, apart from Question Time, to raise this issue. That is so because the yearly review will be removed from us. I raise the question now so that the Home Secretary will have an opportunity to explain the Government's position. The situation which appears to have developed at Strasbourg is that the Act is likely to be branded as a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.
If that happens, we shall have to take some steps to bring ourselves into line with the European Convention. That can be done either by repealing the 1968 Act or by amending the Bill. It is too late to table an Amendment to the Bill. Is it possible to deal with this issue by means of the regulations to be made under this part of the Bill? Is the power there provided wide enough for that to be done? If not, how does the Home Secretary propose to deal with this issue?

Mr. Maudling: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to the debate.
I think that the point made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) is way beyond the narrow terms of these Amendments. That is so, first, because the point is wholly hypothetical. Second, because I do not see how one

can amend a Statute by regulation. If the situation envisaged should arise, we shall have to consider it, but I trust that it will not.
The purpose of the Amendment is very narrow, indeed, and the tendency of hon. Members during the debate has been to stray beyond what is contained in them. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall from time to time, lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or any changes in the rules, laid down by him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament statements of the rules laid down for administering the Act. Subsection (3) says that if a statement is disapproved the Home Secretary shall lay a further statement before Parliament. All that is agreed, and is not called into question by the Amendment. That is the procedure agreed earlier in this House, and confirmed in another place. There is no question of making any rules under the Bill until it becomes law, but for the benefit of the House we have circulated the draft rules in the form in which we intend to make them.
The only thing that the Amendments do is to provide that the obligation laid upon the Secretary of State shall be discharged in a shorter time than he would otherwise have to discharge it. There is no change in his obligation to lay a statement before Parliament. All it says is hat that must be done "as soon as may be". The obligation is the same. He must lay a statement of the rules before Parliament. Under the Amendment that will be as soon as may be, which will be immediately the Bill becomes law.
If it should happen that the statement of the rules is disapproved by Resolution of either House, the Bill provides that a further statement must be laid before Parliament accordingly. The Amendment says that it shall be done within a minimum of 40 days. That is the only effect of the Amendment.
If the Amendments are not made, it will mean that the Secretary of State will have infinite time in which to lay further statements. I am sure that the House would regard that as a mistake, and that it would wish to support the proposition which would provide for further control by Parliament over the Executive. It was


for that reason that the other place put forward these Amendments, and I hope that the House will support them.
The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) raised a point about "statement of". It is not "statement about", but "statement of", and it means the actual wording of the rules. The reason why there is not a reference to the rules themselves is that if there were that would put them, as it were, in the same category as a Statutory Instrument, and these things cannot be done by Statutory Instrument. They are not intended to be in precise legal terms. They are intended to be a guide to immigration officers, and they would be approved in that form. If the rules themselves were in the draft, it would be treated as a Statutory Instrument, and that cannot be. The phrase is "statement of". It is not "statement about". I am advised that legally it means, and will be interpreted as meaning, the rules themselves. I hope that I have cleared up that issue.
I accept that it is important to have time to pray against the rules, or against any changes in the rules. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton anticipated my answer by saying that I could not bind the Leader of the House, at this or any other time. This must be a matter of common sense and parliamentary practice. When we lay the first rules, of course an opportunity will be given to pray against them if that is what hon. Members wish to do. That must be the proper practice.
If an amendment were made to the rules then, unless it was a minor amendment, I should have thought that it would be right for Parliament to be given the opportunity to pray against that amendment. That is the spirit of the Bill, and the spirit in which Parliament has dealt with this Measure. I cannot conceive of that principle being infringed. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, one cannot lay down in statutory form what one has in mind, but I give the undertaking that that is the spirit in which I intend to deal with the problem and I am sure that every Government, from whichever side it comes, will work to that principle.
I shall resist the temptation to be drawn into issues which go beyond these Amendments. The purpose of these Amendments is not to alter the powers of the Secretary of State, but to ensure that what he is already enjoined to do he will do within a limited time.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

PROCEDURE FOR, AND FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO, DEPORTATION

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 7, line 31, at end insert:
(6) Where a person is liable to deportation under section 3(5)(c) or (6) above but, without a deportation order being made against him, leaves the United Kingdom to live permanently abroad, the Secretary of State may make payments of such amounts as he may determine to meet that person's expenses in so leaving the United Kingdom, including travelling expenses for members of his family or household.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment empowers my right hon. Friend to meet the removal expenses of a person who has either become liable to deportation on conviction and recommendation by a court, or belongs to the family of such a person, and who is willing to leave the country without a deportation order being made. In other words, it applies to a person who leaves this country under what is known as the supervised departure procedure. Hitherto, the expenses of these people have been met on a non-statutory basis—in fact, without the specific authority of Parliament.
When the Bill was drafted it was thought that this point could have been covered in Clause 29. But that applies only to a person leaving voluntarily. Particularly in view of a later Amendment, in which it has been made even more clear that Clause 29 is to apply only to a wholly voluntary departure, one cannot say that a person who leaves under the supervised departure procedure is leaving in quite the same way. The Amendment would regularise a situation which has existed for a long time.
I think that the House would generally agree that, particularly for young people who may have offended and also for first offenders who are recommended by a court for deportation, it is often much more humane and in their own interest that, where possible, the supervised departure procedure, which does not carry the stigma of deportation, should be used. It is hoped that this will be used rather more frequently in future.

Mr. Archer: When the Minister of State said that someone who leaves under a scheme of supervised departure cannot strictly be said to be leaving voluntarily, he made the greatest understatement since Columbus said, "I think I have found something".
We do not complain at the principle of what is being done here. It is obviously right that people who are offered the alternative of supervised departure rather than deportation should not for that reason lose the opportunity of having at least their fares paid and of being given such other assistance as has been offered in the past. We do not complain that this is done or that the position is regularised. There are one or two matters which we want to raise on this, but perhaps it would be more convenient to do so when we discuss Clause 29.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 6

RECOMMENDATIONS BY COURT FOR DEPORTATION

Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 9 line 6, leave out "fourteen" and insert "twenty-eight".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a point involving Scottish law which was raised on Report by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). The Amendment will meet the point that he raised.
Clause 6(6) provides that a deportation order shall not be made on the recommendation of a court so long as an appeal is pending and that, for this purpose, the appeal shall be treated as

pending until the expiration of the time for bringing it or, in Scotland, until the expiration of 14 days from the recommendation of the court.
The hon. and learned Member said that the need for the reference to 14 days in Scotland arose because one form of appeal in Scotland, by means of a bill of suspension, is not subject to a time limit. He asked whether this period could not be extended to 28 days. My hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate undertook to consider this point, and the Amendment is the result of that consideration.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I welcome both the Amendment and the kind words of the Minister of State. I would stress that it is a good thing from the Opposition's point of view that the anomaly to which I and others drew attention has been rectified. None of us on this side and no hon. Member opposite particularly wants to achieve an artificial uniformity of law between Scotland and England, where there are distinctive differences which are of value to the respectives communities, but this is not such a case. Indeed, other aspects of this Clause are directed to maintaining a relevant difference between the law of Scotland and the law of England.
But we must remember that the people who are concerned in this part of the Bill are non-patrials, and there is no reason why non-patrials who are being ejected from the country should be treated more harshly in Scotland than in England and Wales. For this reason, among others, we on this side welcome the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

EXEMPTION FROM DEPORTATION FOR CERTAIN EXISTING RESIDENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 9, line 13, leave out "end of July 1971" and insert "coming into force of this Act".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 17, leave out "end of July 1971" and insert "coming into force of this


Act" and Lords Amendment No. 54, in page 35, line 35, leave out from "if" to "been" in line 36 and insert "it is more than five years, throughout the period since the coming into force of this Act".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These Amendments relate to Clause 7, which deals with exemptions from deportation for existing residents. The House will remember that the Bill as it left this place dealt with those who were resident here on 31st July, 1971. The effect of these Amendments is to provide that the date by which a Commonwealth or Irish citizen must have been ordinarily resident or settled in the United Kingdom in order to benefit from certain safeguards in the Bill shall, instead of 31st July, be the date of the coming into force of the Act.
As the House knows, under existing legislation, a Commonwealth or Irish citizen is exempt after he has been here for five years. Clause 7 preserves that right for existing residents, the exemption which they at present enjoy, provided that they are resident here at the time of coming into force of the Act and that they have been resident here for five years. The Bill's main provisions will come into force on a day to be appointed by the Home Secretary. It is too soon yet to say exactly when that day will be, but it is hoped that it will be during the early part of the coming year.

Mr. Peter Archer: Of course we do not disagree in principle with these Amendments. We simply exercise our legitimate right to wonder how the end of July came to be in the Bill in the first place. We suspect that it represented the Government's intention that the Bill would speed through the House at such breakneck speed that it would actually be in force by the end of July.
It may be that every Government is optimistic in that respect, but we cannot help reflecting that the Government possibly failed to appreciate the seriousness of some of the issues which are raised in the Bill. They were important for those seeking to come here as immigrants, for

those who are already here as immigrants and for the host community: they were not matters to be undertaken lightly. No one could accuse us of having wasted time in our discussions on the Bill.
When we look at the list of Amendments we cannot help but reflect—I do not blame the hon. and learned Gentleman for this; his Department cannot be held responsible—that at every stage we have wrung from the Government the very minimum of concessions, but invariably we have wrung them from them only after their protestations that what we were proposing was impracticable. Then, at a later stage, the Government have made what can only be regarded as the very minimum of concessions [Interruption.]
I think I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that those final comments of mine had nothing to do with the Amendment, but we wondered why this provision was in the Bill in the first place. It represented a form of optimism on the part of the Government which failed to grasp the seriousness of the points we had made.
It now appears that the coming into force of the Bill, which will govern this Amendment, is left to Clause 35, which permits the Home Secretary to appoint a day which, we are now told, may be at the beginning of next year.

Mr. Carlisle: In the early part of next year.

Mr. Archer: I will not say that that will exactly gladden a few hearts, but—

Mr. Carlisle: I regret having to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. I should have said on a date during the first half of 1972. That is the hope.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful for that information. What puzzles me is that the Bill left another place yesterday and is in this House today, where we are expected, without any preparation and having mastered such half-baked documents as we got in the course of the last week, to debate the whole thing tonight. What on earth is the hurry?

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 9, line 19, at end insert ", (b)"

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Agreement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following two Lords Amendments.
No. 22, in line 21, leave out from first "years" to "been" in line 23.
No. 23, in line 27, leave out from "years" to "been" in line 29.

Mr. Carlisle: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) will not feel heated about these three Amendments because they deal with a narrow point and are designed to meet a point which was made by the Opposition, a point which, on consideration, was considered to have sound practical common sense behind it.
These Amendments also relate to Clause 7 and are tabled to meet a point made by Lord Brockway in another place. They concern the question of continuous residence and exemption from an Order for deportation. As I said when speaking to the last Amendment, under the existing law Commonwealth citizens are exempt from deportation if they have been here for a period of five years.
Under this Measure, that provision is continued for those who are here now, on the date of the coming into force of the Measure, and, by Clause 7, anybody here on the date of the coming into force of the Measure will not be liable to be deported on conducive ground if ordinarily resident here, provided he remains so resident until the question of deportation arises; and as the Bill was originally drafted he would not be liable to deportation for breach of condition, for overstaying, or as a member of a family of a person ordered to be deported, or on conviction and recommendation by a court if he had for the last five years been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. But if more than five years have passed since the coming into force of the Bill, he must have been continuously so resident from that time until deportation came into question.
6.15 p.m.
The effect of these Amendments is to provide that the Commonwealth or Irish citizen who is ordinarily resident here on the date of the coming into force of the Measure is to be exempt from deportation if he has been continuously so resident for the preceding five years, even if there has been a break in his continuous residence in this country, between the coming into force of the Measure and the later date, when he might otherwise have been liable to deportation. This is a sensible Amendment to make because a person may have been here for many years and then break that continuous residence, and have to re-establish his exemption by a fresh period of continuous ordinary residence of five years or more.

Mr. Peter Archer: I promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that I will not become heated over this issue. My only complaint is that this was not the only Amendment originally suggested by the Opposition which made sound, practical common sense. Our complaint is that too few of our sound, practical, common sense proposals have finally been accepted by the Government.
We are grateful for the clear way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman expounded what is a complicated Amendment. Perhaps I may be allowed to expound it historically because this was one of the concessions I was attempting to discuss earlier as something which we had wrung from the Government. We have had to seek improvements comma by comma, line by line.
Originally there was no protection in the Bill for those whom it was proposed to deport on non-conducive grounds. They were liable even in the first five years of their residence in this country. In Committee we prevailed on the Home Secretary to spell out what he had said earlier in more general terms, when he said that those who were already here would not be in a worse position than if the Bill had not become law, it transpired that that undertaking required spelling out in detail.
For that reason, those who were about to be deported on non-conducive grounds were brought into the scheme of protection, but there was still no joy for those who were not here continuously from the date when the Bill was to come into


force and the date of the Order for those who had a break at some future time in their residence in this country. I explained that this was a complicated matter.
That was not rectified until the Bill arrived in Committee in another place, and then, when it was rectified there, it was discovered that, once again, those who were about to be deported on non-conducive grounds had been left out; and that was not rectified until the Report stage in another place. I trust, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not take it amiss if I am less grateful than his opening remarks indicated I should be.
A question raised in another place by Lord Brockway still puzzles me. It is the fact that the Government have in the end been forthcoming but have been less forthcoming than they might have been. Why have they not been completely open and generous on the subject, if they really wanted to set at rest the minds of many people who are worried about the Bill?
The purpose of the Bill as originally expounded was to equate the position of Commonwealth citizens and aliens, but whenever we looked at the details—this expression has often been used from the benches opposite—we discovered that there was a "levelling downwards". Nobody benefited from the equation. Now, as I understand it, the purpose of the Amendment is to improve the position, or to partially restore it, for certain Commonwealth subjects. Might it not have been rather more generous to have afforded aliens the benefit of this concession, too? Then, just for once, somebody might have received some benefit from the process of equating, rather than always somebody receiving a positive disadvantage.
The Government were invited to do that by my noble Friend Lord Brockway. All one can say is that, on reflection, even now, if there were time, this final concession in a whole string of concessions might commend itself to the Government. It is a complaint which some of us make from time to time that parliamentary procedure is somewhat cumbersome in that there are so many stages in the passage of legislation, but this Amendment is an object lesson demonstrating the

importance of having as many stages as possible, for the Bill really has been improved at every stage of its passage through both Houses. One can only wish that there were yet a further stage at which we might have won a further concession, but I must be content with the result as it stands now.

Mr. Carlisle: If he reflects for a moment, the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that there were two principles underlying the Bill. First, it should equate the position of aliens and Commonwealth citizens in the matter of control of entry as from the coming into force of the Bill; and that it does. But it was equally a clear position taken by the Home Secretary that the Bill should not affect the existing rights of Commonwealth citizens who were here at the time when the Bill came into force. Clause 7 was provided to meet that point, and it is to meet it further and make sure that there is no reduction of existing rights that these Amendments are made.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9

FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO COMMON TRAVEL AREA

Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 12, line 31, after "if" insert:
either—

(a) he is on arrival in the United Kingdom given written notice by an immigration officer stating that, the Secretary of State having issued directions for him not to be given entry to the United Kingdom on the ground that his exclusion is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security, he is accordingly refused leave to enter the United Kingdom; or
(b)"

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As the House knows, under Clause I travel within what is known as the common travel area, that is the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland, is not subject to control, and a person arriving from within the common travel area does


not require leave to enter the United Kingdom.
That general statement in Clause 1(3) is subject to the exception in Clause 9, as now amended in the other place. The effect of amending Clause 9(4) is to provide that a person who is not patrial may not, by virtue of Clause 1(3), enter the United Kingdom without leave on a local journey from within the common travel area, which he otherwise would be able to do, if he is on arrival in the United Kingdom given written notice by an immigration officer stating that he is refused leave to enter because the Secretary of State has issued directions accordingly on the ground that the person's exclusion is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security.
Power to do this exists at the moment under Section 2(4)(c) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, under which one can refuse admission to a Commonwealth or Irish citizen if his admission would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be contrary to the interests of national security. However, uncontrolled travel within the common travel area under the existing law—this is why one can use the 1962 Act—was merely a matter of administrative arrangement, and under the present Bill the position is different in that Clause 1(3) provides for travel within the common travel area to be free of control.
The Amendment will, therefore, provide statutorily the power which has previously existed under Section 2(4)(c). If a person who is not patrial, whether he be alien, Commonwealth citizen or citizen of the Republic of Ireland, comes to the United Kingdom, whether from Ireland, from one of the Channel Islands or from the Isle of Man, the Home Secretary will have the power to exclude him, which he regards as necessary, but only on the basis that he believes that that person's exclusion is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security.

Mr. Peter Archer: This is a serious incursion into what was previously thought to be, and was obviously throughout the progress of the Bill and all our discussions believed to be, the general principle that there should be free travel within the common travel area. I take the point made by the Under-Secretary of

State that there was provision under the 1962 Act for incursions into that principle, but it was nevertheless a principle which all of us thought existed.
The Amendment provides that people within the common travel area may be refused admission on non-conducive grounds. I regard it as a serious incursion, and I imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that. I appreciate the reasons for it, and I acknowledge that the particular occasion which highlighted the particular necessity for it was the fairly recent matter concerning a member, or an alleged member, of the I.R.A.
I accept, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends accept, the need for controlling the movement of people across the Border between Northern Ireland and Eire, or, possibly, from Eire into Great Britain. Obviously, one needs to be able to take account of genuine threats to law and order. But may we be told whether there have been consultations with the Government of Eire about this? Obviously, they are concerned. Perhaps they would have had alternative suggestions for dealing with the problem. We do not know whether there have been any consultations, and we should like to know what, if anything, has been said to the Government of Eire and what their views are.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for what he has said about the Amendment and his appreciation of the reason why it was necessary to bring it in at a late stage. I can tell him that assurances are being given to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to the effect that there is no intention of introducing any general control over travel within the common travel area. One envisages this being used only in the rare type of case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

Mr. Peter Archer: With respect, that does not quite answer my question. I asked whether there had been consultations. There is a real difference between sending a message of assurance and having a proper discussion.

Mr. Carlisle: One cannot have an assurance without consultation. It all depends what one means by the word


"consultation". There must be two sides to consultations; one must give and the other receive. I am told that this information has been conveyed in the form of assurances to the Government of the Republic.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO ENTRY, AND OTHER PHRASES RELATING TO TRAVEL

Lords Amendment: No. 25, in page 13 line 43, at end insert:
(2A) Except in so far as the context other wise requires, references in this Act to arriving in the United Kingdom by ship shall extend to arrival by any floating structure, and "disembark" shall be construed accordingly; but the provisions of this Act specially relating to members of the crew of a ship shall not by virtue of this provision apply in relation to any floating structure not being a ship.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The reason for this Amendment is that there are certain kinds of oil rig which, even if they have their legs up, are not ships within the meaning of the Bill, although they are capable of being towed by a ship.
The provisions of the Bill for the examination of persons arriving in the United Kingdom apply at present only to those arriving by ship or aircraft, and the Amendment has the effect of extending them to anyone who might be carried on an oil rig or any other sort of structure towed into a United Kingdom port.

Mr. Peter Archer: I am sorry to delay the House, but I should really like to know whether, so far as the Government are aware, anyone has ever arrived on an oil rig.

Mr. David Steel: Not even in the fantasies of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) have hordes of immigrants been arriving on oil rigs at this country's shores.

Mr. Sharples: I do not for a moment pretend that hordes of immigrants are arriving on oil rigs, but it is possible for someone to arrive in this way. An

oil rig may be stationary at sea. People come from abroad to work on such oil rigs, landing by helicopter, and it might well be that they would be towed by a tug into the United Kingdom. Without this provision, such persons would not be subject to immigration control.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 13

APPEALS AGAINST EXCLUSION FROM UNITED KINGDOM

Lords Amendment: No. 28, in page 15, line 5, leave out:
if it appears
and insert:
by the adjudicator if he is satisfied".

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 29, in page 15, line 7, leave out
if it appears
and insert:
by the adjudicator if he is satisfied".
Subsection (4) provides that:
An appeal against a refusal of leave to enter shall be dismissed if it appears that the appellant was at the time of the refusal an illegal entrant, and an appeal against a refusal of an entry clearance shall be dismissed if it appears that a deportation order was at the time of the refusal in force in respect of the appellant".
In Committee in another place there was some criticism of the drafting of the subsection on the grounds that the words
if it appears
seemed to require less than the normal standard of proof, and did not make it clear to whom it had to appear that the appellant was an illegal entrant or that a deportation order was in force in respect of him. The Amendments were moved by the Government on Report in another place to make it clear that the appeal is to be dismissed only if the adjudicator is satisfied that the appellant was an


illegal entrant or that a deportation order is in force in respect of him.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

APPEALS IN RESPECT OF DEPORTATION ORDERS

Lords Amendment: No. 30, in page 16 line 17, at end insert:
; but, in calculating the period of eight weeks limited by section 5(3) above for making a deportation order against a person as belonging to the family of another person, there shall be disregarded any period during which there is pending an appeal against the decision to make it.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we consider with it the following Lords Amendments:
No. 31, in page 16, line 18, leave out from beginning to "a" in line 22.
No. 32, in page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (4).
No. 33, in page 17, line 5, at end insert:
(7) On an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order against a person as belonging to the family of another person, or an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so made, the appellant shall not be allowed, for the purpose of showing that he does not or did not belong to another person's family, to dispute any statement made with a view to obtaining leave for the appellant to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (including any statement made to obtain an entry clearance) unless the appellant shows that the statement was not so made by him or by any person acting with his authority and that, when he took the benefit of the leave, he did not know any such statement had been made to obtain it or, if he did know, was under the age of eighteen.
(8) An appeal under this section shall be to the Appeal Tribunal in the first instance, instead of to an adjudicator, if—

(a) it is an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order and the ground of the decision was that the deportation of the appellant is conducive to the public good; or
(b) it is an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order against a person as belonging to the family of another person, or an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so made; or

(c) there is pending a related appeal to which paragraph (b) above applies.
(9) Where an appeal to an adjudicator is pending under this section, and before the adjudicator has begun to hear it a related appeal is brought, the appeal to the adjudicator shall be dealt with instead by the Appeal Tribunal and be treated as an appeal duly made to the Tribunal in the first instance.
(10) In relation to an appeal under this section in respect of a deportation order against any person (whether an appeal against a decision to make or against a refusal to revoke the order), any other appeal under this section is a "related appeal" if it is an appeal in respect of a deportation order against another person as belonging to the family of the first-mentioned person.
No. 34, in Clause 17, page 18, line 42, leave out subsection (6).
No. 35, in Clause 19, page 20, line 16, leave out "(3)".
No. 36, in Clause 21, page 20, line 44, leave out "(3)".
This group of Amendments was brought forward by the Government in Committee in another place in fulfilment of an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in this House on Report. Their effect, in simple terms, is to give a full right of appeal on merits to a person ordered to be deported as being a member of the family of a person who has been ordered to be deported.
Clause 3(5)(c) introduces the power to order the deportation of members of families. Clause 15(4) provided that in such cases there was no right of appeal against the deportation order by a member of the family except on the ground that there was in law no power to make the order, or to make the order against the principal person who had been deported. This was because it was felt that, since in the great majority of cases wives and children will have been admitted to the United Kingdom not in consequence of any claim of their own but as dependants of a man ordered to be deported, they would be unlikely to have any claim of right to remain if he was to be excluded, other than a claim based on compassionate considerations.
It was felt that if the only ground for not deporting the members of the family was likely to relate to compassionate circumstances it was best left to the Secretary of State to assess those rather than that the decisions should be left to individual adjudicators, whose decisions


might well be extremely inconsistent with each other, and who would not see the volume of such cases as would be available to the Home Secretary. However, my right hon. Friend, in view of the opinions expressed in this House, undertook to look at the matter, and he has decided to introduce full rights of appeal on merits. So as to avoid the danger of inconsistency, appeals of this nature will lie direct to the appeal tribunal and not to the individual adjudicator.
Accordingly, the Amendments provide, first, that where the head of the family is to be deported following a recommendation by a court of law there will be an independent right of appeal to the tribunal if it is proposed to deport members of the family, and, secondly, that where the deportation of the head of the family for breach of conditions or overstaying is proposed, the anneal will go to the tribunal instead of the adjudicator if it is proposed to deport members of his family also and any of them have appealed against the decision, and then the two appeals can be heard together.
Where the deportation is on conducive grounds, the appeal of the principal deportee in any event lies direct to the tribunal, and therefore any appeal by members of the family can be taken at the same time, and any appeal against refusal to revoke a deportation order by a member of the family will also lie direct to the tribunal.
My right hon. Friend also undertook that any member of a family will be given the opportunity to avoid what might be felt to be the stigma of deportation by leaving under arrangements for supervised departure. It would be out of order for me to go into any argument on the merits of supervised departure now, but I would point out that the first Amendment provides that in calculating the period of eight weeks, with regard to the time elapsing before the Home Secretary has to make the order,
there shall be disregarded any period during which there is pending an appeal against the decision to make the order".
That deals with the unlikely case where the principal deportee has left the United Kingdom before the determination of an appeal by a member of his family against deportation, and ensures that in such a case there is a full period of eight weeks

after that determination for the making of the order if the member of the family then refuses to leave under supervised departure.
The fourth Amendment reproduces the provision which originally appeared as part of Clause 15(4). It deals with
an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order against a person as belonging to the family of another person, or on an appeal against a refusal to revoke
such a deportation order, when
the appellant shall not be allowed, for the purpose of showing that he does not or did not belong to another person's family, to dispute any statement made with a view to obtaining leave for the appellant to enter or remain in the United Kingdom …
The provision was amended in another place to allow an appellant to dispute such a statement if he
shows that the statement was not so made by him …
with a view to obtaining leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom
or by any person acting with his authority
and that when he obtained leave to enter or remain he was aged 18 or over and did not know that any such statement had been made to obtain leave.
The provisions of the Bill are certainly fairly complicated for one coming fresh to it. Perhaps I can summarise what I have just said with regard to the right to dispute statements made on another occasion by assuring the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) that the provision goes no wider than the common law doctrine of estoppel, and I am sure is for that reason to be welcomed by him and anyone who has considered the details of the Bill.
The advice with regard to deportation is in the draft Rules. The Rules set out in paragraphs 46 to 51 general guidance for the Immigration Appeal Tribunal when dealing with family deportation cases.
I hope that I have made what is a fairly complicated provision reasonably clear.

Mr. Peter Archer: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the rapidity with which he has mastered the very complicated provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Clinton Davis: He had to. The others dared not intervene, having regard to what they have said in the past.

Mr. Archer: I am not privy to the councils of the Government Front Bench, so I can neither confirm nor deny my hon. Friend's speculation.
However, I sincerely congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman. If we had had the benefit of the clarity of his mind at an earlier stage we might have been spared a great deal of the discussion which went to securing these Amendments. I say that without any disrespect to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who dealt with the Bill.
The provisions about holding statements against immigrants now do not go further than the common law doctrine of estoppel. Our complaint all the way through was that they went further than the common law doctrine of estoppel and very much further than the dictates of natural justice. It has taken the whole of the previous proceedings on the Bill to reduce this to the limits of the common law doctrine of estoppel, with which none of us quarrels.
As to the appeals Rules point, we are grateful to the Home Secretary for having considered the matter and having made the concessions. I hope that the Home Secretary will not think it ungracious if we wonder how these provisions came to be absent from the Bill in the first instance. One would have thought that elementary justice required that there should be some form of appeal. As my noble and learned Friend, Lord Gardiner, said in another place, this is perhaps one more stage in the battle to subject Home Office officials to an appeal, in accordance with the general principle that people who are entrusted with great administrative powers over the lives of others should hold them subject to some form of appeal. Even our judges are subjected to appeal.
It would have been very difficult to justify for any great length of time and over many more stages of the Bill the absence of an appeal in situations such as this. Perhaps we will be forgiven if we are not wholly satisfied even now. As my noble Friend, Baroness White, said in another place, the procedure for appeal can be completely fair and satisfactory, but

that does not help greatly unless we know on what grounds we can appeal.
Now, again somewhat belatedly, the Home Secretary has published the amended Immigration Bill Rules relating to rights of appeal. I am not sure how far we should be within the rules of order in debating them. In so far as they relate to the Amendment, I take the liberty of saying in passing that, although we are grateful to the Home Secretary for publishing them, he has not entirely resolved our puzzlement. In my case he has rather exacerbated it.
Paragraph 47 of the Rules states:
In most cases wives and children will have been admitted to the United Kingdom as dependants of the principal deportee. In these circumstances they have no claim to remain if he is to be expelled".
One would have thought that it followed from that that, where they are not dependants, there would be no need to expel them if the head of the family had to be expelled.
Paragraph 48 states:
The ability of the wife to maintain herself and any children in the United Kingdom, or to be maintained by relatives or friends without charge to public funds, is not in itself a sufficient ground or allowing her to remain here".
One would have thought that it followed from paragraph 47 that it was. All is not lost to her if she proves that she can maintain herself and her family. That ability will be a relevant factor if other circumstances point to that conclusion.
6.45 p.m.
I as a lawyer would have been happier—the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate this—if the burden of proof had been the other way. It is being said that, if all the circumstances point to her being allowed to remain, then perhaps if there is any remaining doubt it will push it over the border that she can maintain herself and her family, and therefore nothing will be lost by allowing her to remain here. What is now said is that if she can prove affirmatively that everything points in that direction that will push it over. If she can maintain herself and her family, unless someone can point to some good reason why she should not be allowed to remain I should have thought that we should be generous and hospitable.
I must not pursue a further incursion into these draft Rules. In due course


possibly we shall be allowed to discuss them.
We on this side accept the other matters mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We accept them, indeed, with all the gratitude that we can muster in view of the time and effort that it has taken to extract them. If I may say without irreverence, I have never understood why there should be such unmitigated joy in Heaven over late repentance. One would expect it to be mitigated by some irritation. However, we accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bidwell: We welcome any retreats by the Government which are due to the painstaking discussions which we on this side initiated in Standing Committee. The considerable national anxieties to which expression was given in the other place have played their part in bringing about this change.
I do not like the conception of family deportation. I am struggling to remain within the bounds of order but I remind the Secretary of State that with the patriality concept he had no right to deport children who were born in Britain and who are therefore patrials.
In those circumstances, it was elementary that there should be this machinery of appeal as applying to members of the family other than the breadwinner who might be the subject of deportation. There is the question of the scattering of families. There is the particularly vexed question of the West Indian mother all of whose children may not be living with her, some of them having gone into the homes of relatives. The question of family deportation would not then be publicly countenanced.
Therefore, I am very pleased at the change. I have to be careful in uttering words like that in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), because he seems to take the view that we should not thank the Government for very much. We should bend over backwards to thank them if they withdrew the Bill.
We cannot look a gift horse in the mouth. I have confidence in the general public view of the circumstances in which deportation can and cannot take place. I have confidence in the extent to which the public would accept the deportation

of a whole family. That would be a rare event.
It would have been better if the Government had retreated two steps backwards instead of the little step backwards which they have taken on this question. They should have accepted the full import of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) has said. The reverse case should have applied, with the State accepting the onus of laying a case against a wife and children. At what age does a person cease to be a child? In many instances, teenage children would be married, and that is only one example of the difficulties liable to arise. In such circumstances, the proposal would never get off the ground, provided that it were publicly ventilated. I welcome the changes because they will ensure that public ventilation.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) in saying that mitigating the worst offences in the Government's provisions about appeals does not altogether avoid the ugly concept of family deportation, or whatever other euphemism may be provided for it—supervised departure, or whatever it may be. I look forward to the supervised departure of the whole Government, but that is not relevant now.
The criteria to be available to the adjudicator on an appeal are not sufficiently spelled out in the rules. I have not had sufficient opportunity to consider that, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment. No doubt we shall later be able to consider the criteria. It will be necessary to see how the system works in practice before reaching any specific conclusion.
In passing, I must observe that appeals were fought root and branch by the Government earlier in our discussions. Whenever the adjudicator was mentioned, the Home Secretary kept on with his plaintive song that the matter was not justiciable. How many times we heard that phrase! Now it is justiciable, and this is another concession to the Opposition's point of view. It is a pity that the Government have not been a little more charitable to the views that we expressed so often in Committee. We spent many hours on this matter and at last we seem to have got some degree of common sense into the Government's


head about this and other matters, perhaps because of the pressure of noble Lords.
The doctrine of estoppel seems now to have been brought into conformity with the general rules of the common law in this regard, but I should like an assurance that that is so, for it has been a little difficult to digest all this information in this very hurried manner.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has asked me to pose a question to the Under-Secretary. I apologise for not having given him notice, but there was no opportunity to do so. By far the largest group involved in estoppel are elderly men admitted as dependants of children already here and who have either falsified their age or stated that they had no wives or children still dependant on them in their country of origin. Most of these people were admitted before entry certificates became compulsory in May, 1969. Difficulties arise when they subsequently send for their dependants.
In future, will dependants of those who came in as the result of false statements made before the Bill automatically be refused, or will they be covered by the Government's statement that those already here on a permanent basis will not be affected by the new rules? If the Under-Secretary is not able to deal with that now I will readily understand and will write to him about it.
Whatever the situation on all these matters, one must concede that the Government have seen some degree of light. The murky nature of family deportation still remains, and I do not think that the Government can emerge with anything but shame for having embraced this concept, which sullies further their already rather sullied reputation.

Mr. Carlisle: By leave of the House, I cannot at this point answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), but if he cares to write to my noble Friend who is responsible for these matters I am sure that my noble Friend will be able to answer it. I cannot let his last comment go unchallenged. As he knows, the idea of deportation of other members of a family is certainly not unique to this country, as he tended to suggest it was.
However, I rose to answer the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. The advice or guidance given to the tribunal in these matters is laid down in the draft Rules. The Rules which the House has seen are only draft Rules. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government will carefully study his detailed remarks about the draft Rules and we will take into account what he has said before the final form is drawn up. In due course that final form will be presented to the House, when it will be subject to the negative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 22

PROCEDURE

Lords Amendment: No. 37 in page 21, line 36, at end insert:
( ) The rules of procedure shall provide that any appellant shall have the right to be legally represented".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment requires the rules of procedure for immigration appeals to provide that any appellant should have the right to be legally represented. That is the existing situation and it is the Government's intention that that situation should continue. That is why the Amendment was accepted by the Government in another place.

Mr. Peter Archer: It is one thing to have a right to something and quite another to have the means. Is there any proposal to make legal aid available to ensure legal representation in these circumstances? I suspect that the answer is, "No".

Mr. Sharples: It is; that is the existing position.

Mr. Archer: It may be the existing position, but it is still unsatisfactory. However, at least the House knows what the position is. I cannot take the matter further at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

ILLEGAL ENTRY AND SIMILAR OFFENCES

Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 23, line 25, at end insert "or to an immigration officer".

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient if we discussed at the same time Amendment No. 60, in page 37, line 38 at end insert:
(4A) A person who has renounced citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies under this Act shall not be entitled to be registered as a citizen thereof under subsection (0) above, but may be so registered with the approval of the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 20 of Schedule 2 of the Bill provides that a person liable to detention or detained pending his examination on entry into the country and pending a decision as to whether to admit him, may be temporarily admitted without prejudice to a later exercise of the power to detain him and, further, that while such a person is at large he shall be subject to such restrictions as to residence and as to reporting to the police as may from time to time be notified to him in writing by an immigration officer.
These Amendments provide that a person who is at liberty in this way, pending a decision, may be subject to restrictions as to reporting to an immigration officer instead of to the police. The real purpose of this is that often a person who comes in about whom inquiries have to be made may want to stay at the port at which he has entered. He may want to stay at an hotel and remain in touch with the immigration officer. It is much more convenient that he should report to the immigration officer rather than involve the police.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman has made clear the purpose of this Amendment, but there are one or two questions that I would like to ask. It seems very sensible that in a case where, at Heathrow, for example, someone is under restriction in the way the hon. Gentleman has made clear, that person should report to the immigration officer rather than to the police, thus saving

the time of the police. That is how it was expressed in another place.
The first question concerns the power of the immigration officer. What are they? In this Clause we find the powers of a constable, and we would hope that the powers given to the immigration officer would not be wider than in the context of his job. This is not a question of the immigration officer's relieving the police of work outside the airport or seaport involved. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me some assurance about what is involved.
The argument behind this Amendment is that it would remove the need to involve the police. We can deduce that, despite what we have heard has happened in another place—and one of the most unsatisfactory parts of our procedure is that an issue which was debated in this place in its various proceedings can be conceded elsewhere whereas we seem to have no time to discuss it now—the Government have decided that the police shall still be involved in the working of immigration control other than in the context of people who come here with a work permit. I presume that the police will still be involved in other areas and that this takes away from them a certain amount of registration work. We ought to have some word on this, and perhaps this is the time when we can be given some advice as to what the work of the police will be from which, to save time, a certain amount will, very sensibly, be taken by immigration officers.

Mr. Bidwell: From my experience there are stages when the immigration officer has to call on the assistance of the police. I had in mind an earlier remark about some kind of document in writing furnished by an immigration officer to restrict a person's movements. The Minister spoke of the possibility of a person staying at an hotel near an airport as long as the officer thought that the person would obey the restrictions placed upon him.
As I understand the position, any conditional period of stay is described in the passport marking. I do not know at what stage people would get something in writing to say that they may go to a nearby hotel instead of remaining in some kind of restriction within the area of say, Heathrow.
There is a dual situation. The immigration officer will require police assistance occasionally. Here, I am thinking of the physical aspects. He has to judge whether a person will obey limited stay conditions. I have in mind a person arriving with a return ticket who says that his intention is to visit the country. Such a person may have been advised to get an entry certificate, but he is under no compulsion to do so before departure. I-le is, however, liable to be refused entry, and an immigration officer may be in doubt as to whether he intends to spend a limited period in the country or really intends to settle.
I am interested in the future position. As time goes on people from overseas will be able to make a good living here, notwithstanding the Government's economic record. They will be able to send money for return fares to old people not entirely dependent upon them. This sort of thing is likely to increase. I am concerned about it, in view of case experience over the technicalities and the physical force required to carry out the immigration officer's decision.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The complexity of the law on immigration, the renewal of permits and the rest of it, make it essential that there should be a ready availability of advice. What has caused me a degree of anxiety is that I have heard that the Public Enquiry Office of the Home Office in Holborn is to be moved to Croydon, making it inaccessible to a number of people. I should like to know from the Minister whether that is right. If it is, then, in view of the difficulties concerning the office at Holborn, the position of people seeking advice will be impossible. There is little doubt that they will be kept waiting, not simply for hours but for days, seeking what would he for them advice of great urgency.
If that information is correct, I urge the Government to consider taking accommodation in the Holborn area, because additional burdens will be imposed not only on the immigrants seeking advice but on the Home Office staff. People will want to seek advice on the nature of the restrictions imposed as to residence and as to reporting to the police.

They will want that advice speedily. It would be unfair to impose on them additional travelling burdens. I hope that the Minister will give us a satisfactory assurance on this point.

Mr. Sharples: With the leave of the House, may I say that these Amendments refer only to the very narrow point concerning people who have not been admitted to this country. In many cases, it is convenient that they should not be held in detention but should be allowed to stay in, say, a hotel convenient to the airport or port through which they came. This does not involve any question of people having to register with the police or at employment exchanges after admission. It does not involve any question about what a visitor does after he has been admitted. It does not involve the question of what inquiries people may want to make at the Immigration Department offices at Holborn or anywhere else. This is a question of people who have not been admitted to this country. It is a matter of convenience, and not a matter of saving police time, that they should keep in contact with and report to an immigration officer rather than a police officer who may not know anything about the case.
The immigration officer has no powers other than those defined in Clause 24(3). We are not in cases of this sort thinking of having to arrest anyone by force. If it were necessary for that to happen, the immigration officer would, although he has power to arrest, normally send for a police officer and ask him to do it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 39, in page 23, line 33, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment concerns a point raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). An Amendment was accepted inserting the word "knowingly" in subsection (1)(a). Amendment 39 is consequential upon it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25

ASSISTING ILLEGAL ENTRY, AND HARBOURING

Lords Amendment: No. 40, in page 25, line 21, after "then" insert:
subject to subsections (6A) and (7) below".

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient to discuss at the same time the following:
Amendment No. 41, page 25, line 23, after "subsection" insert:
(but not in subsection (6A) below)".
Amendment No. 42, page 25, line 26, at end insert:
(6A) A court shall not order a ship or aircraft to be forfeited under subsection (6) above on a person's conviction unless—

(a) in the case of a ship it is of less than 500 tons gross tonnage or in the case of an aircraft (not being a hovercraft) it is of less than 5,700 kilogrammes operating weight; or
(b) the person convicted is at the time of the offence the owner or one of the owners or a director or manager of a company which is the owner or one of the owners of the ship or aircraft; or
(c) the ship or aircraft under the arrangements in respect of which the offence is committed has been used for bringing more than 20 persons at one time to the United Kingdom as illegal entrants and the intention to use the ship or aircraft in bringing persons to the United Kingdom as illegal entrants was known to or could by the exercise of reasonable diligence have been discovered by some person on whose conviction the ship or aircraft would have been liable to forfeiture in accordance with paragraph (b) above.
In this subsection "operating weight" means in relation to an aircraft the maximum total weight of the aircraft and its contents at which the aircraft may take off anywhere in the world in the most favourable circumstances in accordance with the certificate of airworthiness in force in respect of the aircraft.

Mr. Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Carlisle: Clause 25 deals with the question of illegal entry. Subsection (6) provides that when the owner or charterer of a ship, aircraft or vehicle, or the captain of an aircraft, is convicted on indictment of assisting illegal entry the court has power to order the forfeiture of the ship, aircraft or vehicle provided—and the provision is in subsection (7)—but

the court shall not make an order against the person claiming to be the owner, if he applies to be heard by the court, until it has heard anything he wishes to say.
However, it was accepted that in its original form the provision for forfeiture was extremely wide. It gave rise to a certain degree of criticism on the basis that under the Clause a large, substantial ship would be liable to forfeiture merely because the captain had been engaged in bringing in perhaps small numbers of illegal immigrants without the owner having any knowledge of it. Similar views were expressed about large aircraft. This point was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and in another place. As a result, the Government undertook to study the position further.
There were consultations with the Chamber of Shipping and accordingly these Amendments were brought forward in another place. They mean that a ship or aircraft cannot be forfeited unless the ship is less than 500 tons or the aircraft is less than 5,700 kilogrammes—otherwise it is a small plane or ship—or it is the owner who has been convicted of assisting in the illegal entry or that the ship or aircraft, although bigger than the size and weights I have mentioned, has been used for bringing in more than 20 illegal entrants at any one time and the intention to bring them in is known to the owner or could have been discovered by him by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
In other words, we are here concerned with the man who knows or deliberately chooses to turn a blind eye to that which he undoubtedly should know. Under the Amendment, a large ship or aicraft can be forfeited only if it has been engaged substantially in the carriage of illegal entrants and the prosecution shows that the owner must have known, or was closing his eyes to, what was going on.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Under-Secretary of State has explained that there have been discussions with the Chamber of Shipping. We have no reason to disagree with the Amendment. This seems a reasonable change for the Government to make.
I have no doubt that there is sense in providing for a gross tonnage of 500;


I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Department have given thought to the matter. I have no reason to believe that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the operating weight of 5,700 kilogrammes for aircraft. I hope that the Government have got the "norm" weight of 5,700 kilogrammes right. There has been an increase in recent years in immigrants being brought illegally into this country by air. Given the present-day thrust of aircraft engines and the changes in metals used in aircraft and engines, it is surprising how many people can be carried in aircraft.
I would have thought it much easier to have a rogue owning this type of aeroplane than a ship, given what has happened in shipping over the years, with the size of companies, the necessity for docking, and so on. I just hope that an eye will be kept on this figure of 5,700 kilogrammes. I cannot pretend that my request is based on any detailed knowledge, except my time as a Service Minister with the Royal Air Force, when I learned that a great deal of change has taken place in these respects, and so I hope the Government will keep an eye on that figure.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It may seem rather odd that we should want to discuss at some length this Lords Amendment. On the face of it, it seems perfectly reasonable and full of common sense, but I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State why it is that it took such a long time for the Government to be seized of the reasonableness of the Amendment. As he said, the question was raised here on Report and in Committee in another place, where, again, it was resisted, the Home Office Minister in charge of the Bill there saying that the Amendment was unacceptable.
However, there was considerable discussion and negotiation with the Chamber of Shipping during the Summer Recess, and the Chamber apparently persuaded the Government that they ought to change their mind. It simply is not good enough now to say, "Well, we had those consultations and we changed our mind". We need to know more about it, and why it was thought necessary that the Government should change their mind, because in two other aspects of the law, as I understand it, lack of knowledge by the owner does not absolve the owner from the

possibility of being charged with an offence.
Two cases come to mind immediately. If the tenant of a flat is charged with the possession of cannabis, or the smoking of cannabis, or the use of other drugs, in the flat, the owner can be taken to court, even though he denies all knowledge of the drugs being in the flat; because it is the responsibility of the owner to make absolutely certain that his premises are run in the proper manner. Similarly, if a house is used for immoral purposes—as a brothel, for instance—though the owner may know nothing at all about it it is not a defence for the owner to say he knew nothing of it. Why is it that shipowners are apparently given this concession in respect of the work and duties of their servants?
We might try to probe the mind of Government officers and Ministers when they consider whom they will consult and whom they will not consult. I am delighted that the Government took the opportunity of the long Summer Recess to have discussions in accordance with pledges which they gave their noble Friends who support the Government party in another place. I am glad that they took the opportunity to have those discussions with the shipping people. In Committee on the Bill in this House we spent hour upon hour asking the Government to consult immigrants' organisations, to consult not just the Race Relations Council, as a corporate body, but all the individual community relations councils in the boroughs. That was thought to be impracticable. We were told that it was not necessary to discuss these things with the people on the ground because the Government knew best. All I can say is that it appears to me that if one belongs to a large shipping company and has a great deal of money at stake one is listened to, but the ordinary people and voluntary organisations are not treated in the same way.
Why is it that a ship of 500 tons gross is chosen as being subject to forfeiture? It seems an arbitrary figure. There is no distinction between a passenger ship and a cargo ship. It is easy for illegal immigrants to be brought in in cargo ships of greater capacity than 500 tons, a blind eye being cast by the owner, but nothing can be done about it because of this arbitrary figure of 500 tons. One


may expect passenger ship companies to exert great control on the number of passengers their ships carry, and to see that their captains, and the people in charge, are particularly careful, but I see no reason why the arbitrary figure of 500 tons should be adopted. We need further explanation beyond what we have already had, and I hope that we shall get it, because it may save a lot of time in the long run and when we consider other matters.

Mr. Carlisle: If I may, by leave of the House, I will reply to some of the points raised.
Some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) I find somewhat surprising and churlish. It is clearly a substantial power to take—the power to order forfeiture of a ship or aircraft where an order may be made against the owner when the offence, as such, has been committed by his agent but without the owner's knowledge. Although I was not directly concerned with the earlier stages of the Bill I know that an issue of that kind is discussed in the Home Office where obviously, one looks to see that the powers are of the nature which is necessary, and to see that they are suitable for carrying out the purpose for which they are needed, without their being excessively wide. That is why, after consultation—this point having been raised in both Houses—a restriction on the power has been found acceptable to the Government. The hon. Gentleman says, "Why consult the Chamber of Shipping?". It was because it raised this matter as one about which it was concerned.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North asked me about the figure of 5,700 kilogrammes. I am told that that figure was taken because it is the dividing line used for other purposes. For instance, if an aircraft is over that weight it has to have two qualified pilots. It provides for passenger aircraft—not only light pleasure aircraft but also aeroplanes of the executive jet type of 5,700 kilogrammes. I am told that the figure of 500 tons gross was taken because it

was considered, after consultation, to be the appropriate figure as the dividing line.
On the other point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North I speak subject to correction, because I speak only from my own recollection, without any advice. With respect to him, I think that he was quite wrong to make the distinction which he did, that the Government took note of the Chamber of Shipping and that the requirement of knowledge on the part of a shipping company did not apply to the owner of a house where cannabis is smoked without his knowledge. There was a case which went to the House of Lords, and I am almost sure I am right in saying that under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which went through Parliament last year, provision was made that knowledge is a necessary requirement for an offence to have been committed. So, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that he was not quoting a good example when he said that the Government would listen to one group of people but not to another.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 26

GENERAL OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATION OF ACT

Lords Amendment: No. 43, in page 25, line 37, after "if" insert "without reasonable excuse".

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment to Clause 26(1)(a), which makes it an offence to fail to submit to examination by an immigration officer or medical inspector on arrival in this country or by an immigration officer on departure. The Amendment qualifies the offence with the words "without reasonable excuse". This was a matter on which we had some discussion in Committee, and I think it meets the point of several hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27

OFFENCES BY PERSONS CONNECTED WITH SHIPS OR AIRCRAFT OR WITH PORTS

Lords Amendment: No. 44, in page 26, line 31, at end insert "in the United Kingdom".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 66, in Schedule 2, page 45, line 28, after "Kingdom" insert:
or before the directions for his removal have been fulfilled".

Mr. Sharples: Amendment No. 44 paves the way for Amendment No. 66, which is the substantive Amendment affecting paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. Its purpose is to ensure that, where directions are given under paragraphs 8 to 14 of that Schedule, after refusal of entry or illegal entry, or under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 which refers to deportation, for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom, the captain of the ship or aircraft may be required to prevent him from disembarking until the directions are fulfilled, and has express legal authority to detain him on board until he reaches his destination.
As the Bill stands there is an anomaly that, although the removal directions will specify a destination and the person concerned has an appeal as to destination under Clause 17, the captain of the ship or aircraft to whom directions are given has no clear authority to enforce them by restraining the person from attempting to disembark at some other destination. The Amendment is made to ensure that a carrying company is not put at risk of legal action being taken against it in this country because it has sought to enforce directions lawfully given to it by the Immigration Service.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Minister referred to a carrying company. Does this refer to carrying companies of any nationality and not just our own?

Mr. Sharples: Yes, the lion. Gentleman is quite correct. This was at the representation of B.O.A.C. and the Chamber

of Shipping, but it refers to a carrying company or carrier of any nationality.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29

CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPENSES OF PERSONS RETURNING ABROAD

Lords Amendment: No. 45, in page 28, line 22, at end insert:
(2) The Secretary of State shall, so far as practicable, administer this section so as to secure that a person's expenses in leaving the United Kingdom are not met by or out of a payment made by the Secretary of State unless it is shown that it is in that person's interest to leave the United Kingdom and that he wishes to do so.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in this Amendment.

Mr. Maudling: During the passage of the Bill fear was expressed that Clause 29, or powers under it, might be used to harass people or drive them out of this country against their will. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I can see nothing in the Bill which would give anyone any power to do that which he has not got at the moment. Nevertheless these doubts and fears continued, and the Government came to the conclusion that if this scheme was to be successful, as we hope, and to be run by a first-rate voluntary organisation of which the House is well aware, it would be wise to put in this Amendment, which is declaratory in effect.
The Amendment says that this Clause shall be administered so as to ensure that people do not have their expenses met in leaving the United Kingdom unless it is clear that they wish to do so and it is in their interests to do so. Obviously no one wishes to throw anyone out of the country unless he wishes to go. The whole purpose of the scheme is to repatriate people who want to go home. We want to cover every situation in which people may be harassed or pressurised to say that they want to go, people who are not going of their own free will but because they have been harassed, pressured or blackmailed.
The purpose of the Amendment is to allay a fairly widespread anxiety in the House and outside and to make it clear, as was always the intention of the Government, that the payment of expenses of people returning should be only for people who genuinely want to go.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This Amendment is of great importance, and we support it. The whole question of repatriation was well discussed during the passage of the Bill and, indeed, it has been one of the major issues discussed in the country as a whole in recent years. The Home Secretary is correct in saying that he has made his view clear. He summarised it when he said that the aim of the Clause was to help people who cannot fit in and want to go elsewhere, as opposed to reducing the population. On Second Reading he said:
The Government do not believe in large-scale repatriation. It is wrong because it would not work and the attempt to make it work would be enormously damaging to what I see as the real objective of our policy, namely, to improve community relations among people already here.
The view of the Government could not be clearer. The Home Secretary went on to say:
It would not be right to pay the fares home of those who can afford to pay them themselves. If people can afford to pay and want to leave this country, it is obviously a bribe to them to go. How can we reconcile that with our desire to make one single community in this country ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 53.]
The view of the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government, is absolutely clear and is in contradistinction to the view of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who said:
I believe there is a disposition to administer as well as to draw, the provision in the Bill in a very restrictive manner. I have to tell him …
—the Home Secretary—
… that if that were so, it would be at variance with what has been said to the country on behalf of this party …".
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he quoted from the Prime Minister's speeches in Ipswich in 1967 and in Walsall in 1969. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Nobody who listened to what the Conservative Party has said on this subject, both during the General Election and in the years

before, could have supposed that there was any intention to limit the availability.
He summed it all up by saying:
If my right hon. Friend administers these provisions in a restrictive manner, he will incur a grave responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 84.]
This Amendment, especially in the words at the end—
… unless it is shown that it is in that person's interest to leave the United Kingdom and that he wishes to do so
reinforces the views expressed on many occasions by the Home Secretary, and that is why we support it.
In Committee we were informed that a voluntary organisation was to administer this Part of the Bill—International Social Service. We were told the Government's intentions. I hope I am in order in asking how the I.S.S. is to administer this scheme. Is it to be given the amended Clause and told that that is the Government's intention? Given a different procedure there are many other questions which we could ask. How are we to be sure that the person "wishes to do so" and that it is "in that person's interest" to leave the United Kingdom? What rules, regulations and instructions will be given to I.S.S.? We believe the Clause is admirable and shall support it.

Mr. Powell: I shall not use this Lords Amendment as a means for opening again the issue of the scope and importance of the system of repatriation. I am the less tempted to do so because the lion. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has briefly, but clearly, reminded the House of the large difference of view which exists between myself and my right lion. Friend. I would simply say, as a footnote, that there is no difference between myself and my right hon. Friend as to what is one of the purposes of this Amendment; namely, to ensure that assisted repatriation, large or small as its scope may be—or ought to be—is, in the fullest sense of the term, voluntary.
I come to the Amendment itself, and I wish to ask two questions of detail about it which are really matters of interpretation, and then to make a point of more substance.
The first question relates to the expression
a person's expenses in leaving the United Kingdom …".


I assume that in the case where the expenses paid include the travel expenses for members of a family or household the person here is solely the head of the household or head of the family because, if it could be interpreted more widely, we would have what I feel would be the absurd requirement that it should be ascertained that each member of a family—which might include members who were minors and very young indeed—wish to leave the United Kingdom. I hope that that is not ambiguous. I take it that the intention is that these tests, as it were, which have been introduced by the Amendment should apply to the head of the family. That is the first point on which I should be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's clarification.
The second point was trenched upon by the hon. Member for Leeds, South and relates to the phrase, "it is shown that". There is nothing in the Amendment which indicates to whom it must be shown. The natural interpretation of the Clause, in the absence of any indication, would be that it would be shown to the Secretary of State.
After all, he is the only authority who is mentioned in the Clause. If the requirement were that this should be shown to the Secretary of State, we should have a familiar position. We should have a position which exists under many Statutes where the Secretary of State acts on a judgment he has formed and, having formed that judgment, he is responsible to the House and is open to criticism upon the facts of the case for the judgment at which he had arrived. But if there is to be an agency, as we have understood, for the discharge of the Secretary of State's functions, then it would appear that the requirement was merely that it should be shown to the agency.
If this is so, if it is only the agency and not the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State to whom the fulfilment of these conditions must be shown, then at least two difficulties arise. One has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. What are we to be told and what control is there to be over the procedure of this body which is exercising, as deputy or agency, a statutory function and is also applying public money in its discharge of a quasijudicial

function which is involved in the words "it is shown"?
7.45 p.m.
The second question which arises is: how are we to call that body to account for its administration? Is the Secretary of State to be as completely responsible to this House as if there were no agency interposed between himself and the exercise of the power which he takes by this Clause of the Bill? That is the second question to which I hope my right hon. Friend will reply: to whom does it have to be shown that these conditions are fulfilled?
I now come to the two new conditions which are inserted by the Amendment. To the second of those, I take it there can be no possible difficulty, namely, the condition that the person "wishes to do so". The difficulty I see is in regard to the first of the two conditions, namely, that it is in that person's interest to leave the United Kingdom. I entirely accept the explanation given by my right hon. Friend for the purpose of those words and entirely accept that it is desirable as far as possible to exclude an extorted consent, a pressurised wish. But I am afraid that the Amendment goes far beyond the fulfilment of that intention.
As the Amendment stands, it would not be sufficient for the applicant fully to satisfy whatever authority is concerned that he wants to go home. But under these terms, the authority could then go on to consider in its own discretion and on its own judgment whether, in its opinion, it was in his interest to do so. That seems to me to be highly objectionable. If we are to provide assistance for repatriation, then having once established that the applicant is genuinely desirous of going home it does not seem to me right that persons who may well have no idea of the cultural or other background of the individual, and in any case persons whose business it is not to form such a judgment, then go on to calculate whether, in their view, he will be the gainer by going home or not.
There are many people who would gladly go home and who would accept assistance to go home of whom, to anyone else, it could be demonstrated that it was against their interest. They might be going home to worse conditions economically. They might be going home to a


country—one can think of such a country at present—torn by strife. Yet I do not think it can be the intention of this House to withhold from such persons, if their genuine voluntariness is established, the opportunity of returning home.
I say to my right hon. Friend that, in the haste of the concluding stages of this legislation in another place, this Amendment was dangerously misdrafted. Though I accept that he may be able to impose—we do not know this—on the administration of the Clause the very narrow limitation he indicated in moving the Amendment, the words as they stand are unconscionably and unacceptably wide. We are at this stage of the legislation, under the pressure of our procedure, but we ought not to be putting into this Clause a discretionary expression as wide as that.

Mr. David Steel: I have some sympathy with the final point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Indeed, I would say that there would have been a difference in drafting if the Amendment had suggested, not that positively it must be shown that it was in the person's interest, but negatively that it should be shown that it was not against his interest. That would have been a clearer phrase than the affirmative wording of the Amendment.
I calculate that this is the fifth occasion in the two Houses on which this subject has been discussed. It illustrates a fundamental point, which is that if a clear case is made out that there is a need to amend Clause 29, the Amendment should have been considered and a more generous attitude taken to it in Committee. The reason why we now question the drafting is that, at the very last stage, after five separate discussions, the Government have now conceded a point that they might have conceded earlier.
To go back over the history of this matter, those of us who looked at the Bill originally thought that the repatriation provision in Clause 29 was dangerous, We did so for two reasons. The first was that it was liable to misinterpretation among the immigrant community already here. The second was that it was liable to misinterpretation by any future Administration.
When this argument was first put forward on Second Reading, the Government shrugged it off. However, in Committee, the very divisions of opinion in the Conservatice Party about what was promised before the election and what was the intention about the scale of repatriation made us more convinced of the need for this Amendment. We query the drafting now simply because of the lateness of this obvious concession which, had it been made earlier, would have done much to remove some basic objections to the Bill.

Mr. Bidwell: Without doubt, the Home Secretary's statement in Committee in answer to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was a complete slap down to any notion of repatriation on a massive scale of those immigrant families who have come to this country in the past 15 years or so. The wording of the Lords Amendment ties up the position completely, so much so that I am obliged to rethink the attitude which I took in Committee, which was that it was wrong to put a Clause of this kind in the Bill at all. Indeed, that was argued from the Opposition side of the Committee. However, I think that history will judge whether the Clause was necessary.
These words add almost a new Clause to the Bill and contradict completely the earlier contributions of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. However, although the singular form is used—
and that he wishes to do so"—
the fear has been expressed that, under deportation arrangements or as a result of harassment, it would not remain in the singular but might be extended to wives and children and, having once got under way, might be extended still further. We no longer fear that situation, so long as we have a Statute of this kind.
In that connection, I am obliged to refer to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because the concept of repatriation or assisted passages back to people's lands of origin on a fairly large scale, to which he has referred, especially in speeches outside this House, needs to be rebutted completely. That is not only an inhuman


concept, which is now dealt with in this fundamental way by the Home Secretary; it is not in the national economic interest to do so.
In this case, the hard material facts of life go hand in hand with the genuine emotional content of our nation, which believes in the community and in a fair deal for all but which also believes that, when people are recruited overseas for employment in this country, they should have the right to be accompanied by their wives and families. That is the position in the Common Market, and it is now enshrined in this enactment in that Commonwealth citizens working here are given the statutory right to have their children and other dependent relatives with them. That is the view of both sides of the House, and it is underlined by this Amendment from the other place.
The possibility of harassment, pressure and campaigning in order to build up a head of steam amongst the indigenous population which might turn rapidly into a campaign of hatred against newcomers is no longer on the agenda. Certainly it is made less possible by the inclusion of these words.
When the concept of massive repatriation was first mooted, the indigenous working class population in my constituency at first considered it seriously. However, it then turned into a laughing matter. People felt that if there was to be a large-scale expenditure of public money on the repatriation of immigrants and their dependants, they, too, would like the chance to obtain assisted passages to other countries. Several Commonwealth countries give assistance to people who wish to go there as emigrants, but not all of them.
Another possibility advanced by my constituents was that other Commonwealth countries might go in on a large scale for paying the return fares of their immigrants who wanted to come home. Most hon. Members probably have experience of cases where people have emigrated to Canada, Australia or New Zealand, have been disappointed with their lot in those countries, and have wanted to return home. My information is that it is a hard grind to get back home, and I have relatives who have been in that situation.
To summarise, it is welcome news that large-scale repatriation with advertisements

on display in post offices and so on is a non-starter. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West has been rebutted completely by the majority of his own party and by the united resolve of mine.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have not overindulged the right hon. Gentleman in much praise during the debate but I congratulate him on the Amendment. The effect of which is to put an end to suggestions that people who genuinely did not want to go home of their own free will would be forced to do so. The only criticism that I make is that it is a pity that it was not suggested much earlier, because there has been great anxiety on the part of many immigrants about this provision. The right hon. Gentleman has been as good as his word in Committee, when he spelt out his feelings about the matter. They are now accurately reflected in the subsection.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) queried the provision that it has to be
in that person's interest to leave the United Kingdom".
It is difficult to think of any other adequate form of words which ensure that there would be no harassment on the part of certain people to induce others to say that they wanted to go home. It does not require the use of one's immagination too much to see how pressure can be brought upon people to say that they "voluntarily" wish to go home. The provision is just, and it is right that those two matters should be read conjunctively. I therefore hope that, as we near the end of our debate on perhaps one of the most important provisions in the Bill, the expression of opinion which has emanated from the right hon. Gentleman on this matter will be taken to heart by hon. Members opposite who have not always shared that view. This matter will reinforce the work of those who are engaged in the important duties of trying to create and preserve good relations between races. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maudling: With the leave of the House, may I say that congratulations from the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) are rare indeed, though no less welcome? I should be out


of order in saying timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes, but the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean. [Interruption.] "I am scared of compliments from the other side" is a rough translation.
As the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, it is important that the work to be done under this Clause is undertaken by the International Social Service. We all recognise that it is a fine organisation, and we are indebted to it for taking on this job. I am particularly glad that it is doing so, because it stresses the fact that in the Government's view this is a social welfare operation. For that reason we cannot draw the Clauses too tightly. We do not want a rigid scheme. We must have a good deal of flexibility. It must be dealt with on a common-sense basis by practical people who know how to deal with individual cases which, as we have often said, cannot necessarily be specified in black and white in the Statute.
That is why I think that the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), although always valid, are not entirely consonant with the spirit of the scheme, the principle of which the House has generally endorsed—that it should be a social welfare or social service scheme worked by a private body at the invitation of the Secretary of State. Of course, the Secretary of State remains fully responsible to Parliament for what happens and for accounting for the money which he passes to that body to do that job. However, I hope that there will be as little interference as possible by Government Departments in the work of the International Social Service.
On the specific points raised by my right hon. Friend, first, I think that I am right in saying that "person" in the new subsection (2) would have the same meaning as "person" in subsection (1).
My right hon. Friend's second point was: to whom is it to be shown? The Amendment reads:
The Secretary of State shall, so far as practicable"—
that is a wise provision, because it is a difficult thing to draft—
administer this section so as to secure that a person's expenses in leaving the United Kingdom are not met by or out of a payment made by the Secretary of State unless it is shown

As I read it, it is for the Secretary of State to determine how this showing should be done. It will certainly not be by reference to him personally, and I should not have thought by reference to the Home Office. It is the job of the people administering the scheme to administer it, but it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to see that the scheme is drawn up in a way which enables them to administer it properly and efficiently.
That applies to the next phrase.
that it is in that person's interest".
If one is legalistic, it is easy to say that the drafting is wide and loose. We thought about it a great deal. It is difficult to find anything better in the context of a social work organisation. As I interpret it, in common sense the person concerned will be asked first if he wants to go. This is fairly clear. This question should be asked. It may be that he wants to go only because he has been bullied and pressurised. We are trying to provide for that by saying that if he is applying we should make sure that it is in his interest to go; in other words, that he is not being bullied or pushed into doing something contrary to his interest by saying he wants to go. That is why it is difficult to lay it down in statutory form. To leave the provision only about wishing to do so and having nothing about its being in his interest would not meet the point.

Mr. Powell: In what objective sense could it be said to be in the interests of an East Bengali, who otherwise fulfilled the conditions, to return to his home village knowing perhaps that it had been devastated and was still in a dangerous area? Could anybody be satisfied that it was in his interest, and would the intention be that assistance should be withheld from him to return home?

Mr. Maudling: People will be satisfied that it is in his interest. If be wants to go back to his home and knows about those dangers, I see no reason for declaring that it is not in his interest to do so. The purpose is to prevent people being pressurised, not to prevent people genuinely using free intentions of their own.

Mr. Bidwell: I gather that the point which the I.S.S. should bear in mind is that he has not got the means to go home.


This is what it would have to inquire into.

Mr. Maudling: The whole scheme is based on means in the original Clause 29. The purpose is that, in the best drafting we can devise, the scheme is not to be administered on a pedantic basis, but on a common-sense basis by a good organisation, and that the Secretary of State shall be accountable to the House for its administration. This seems the best way to meet the widely expressed wish that the scheme should not be used for any form of compulsory repatriation or of harassment or bullying.
For that reason I ask the House to accept the Lords Amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 30

RETURN OF MENTAL PATIENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 46, in page 28, line 33, at end insert:
(2) Under section 90 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (as under section 82 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960) the Secretary of State shall only authorise the removal of a patient if it appears to him to be in the interests of the patient; and accordingly in section 90 after the words "and for his care or treatment there" there shall be inserted the words "and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment deals with the difficult question of removal of a person on mental grounds. The Clause provides for the extension to Commonwealth and Irish citizens of the existing power under the Mental Health Acts to remove aliens receiving treatment for mental illness as in-patients to a country or territory overseas. The Amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall remove a patient, whether alien or Commonwealth or Irish citizen, only if removal appears to him to be in the interests of the patient.
This matter was discussed at some length in Committee. The Amendment now before the House meets an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend at that stage.

Mr. Peter Archer: For once I can respond to the hon. Gentleman purely as

a matter of gratitude and without in any way being rude to him. This is a Bill much of which restricts the rights of people. Happily, most of the Amendments that we are considering tonight impose limitations upon those restrictions. This Amendment improves the existing law. The law will now be better than it was before the Bill was introduced, and in that respect the Amendment is unique among the Amendments that we have considered tonight.
The defect in the law was one which both parties had overlooked. I, personally, am most grateful to certain private associations for pointing it out, and in particular to the National Association for Mental Health. We in our turn pointed out the defect in Committee. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State listened, and this is the result.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I want to ask one question about the way in which this provision is to be administered. It may be that a large number of those who will be affected by the application of this provision will be students who have come here and have succumbed to ill-health, perhaps because of financial and other pressures. They may not succeed in what they are trying to do. They may recognise that a lot of money has been spent on them by those who sponsored their coming here, and that to go home would mean failure on their part. Before a decision is made whether it is in the best interests of such a person to go home, what consultation will be undertaken by the Secretary of State with, say, the student organisations? Is any consultation envisaged?
As regards the arrangements for their going home, will such people simply be sent to their places of origin? Will there be any safeguards to ensure that they could be adequately received there?

Mr. Sharples: Perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply.
The provision applies to those who are mental in-patients. That being so, I do not think that it would be appropriate to have discussions with other than medical representatives. The normal way in which this would be done is that advice would be received from the medical person who was looking after the patient, and of course one would take into account the facilities available


in the country from which the patient came, and to which he is being sent. That is important.
I think it was understood in Committee that this provision would be exercised largely in the interests of the person concerned, and I feel sure that that consideration will always be paramount in these cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33

INTERPRETATION

Lords Amendment: No. 47, in page 30, line 29, leave out from "means" to "adopted" in line 31.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to debate Lords Amendment No. 48, in page 30, line 32, at end insert:
or by any adoption specified as an overseas adoption by order of the Secretary of State under section 4 of the Adoption Act 1968;").

Mr. Carlisle: I notice that in moving these Amendments in another place my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor described them as rather dull little Amendments. That is an accurate description. They are drafting Amendments to take account of the possibility that Section 4 of the Adoption Act, 1968 might be brought in by a commencement order before the Bill comes into effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1

REGISTRATION AS CITIZEN BY REASON OF RESIDENCE, CROWN SERVICE ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 52, in page 35, line 16, leave out "in both places" and insert:
in subsection (1) the words "or, subject to subsection (1A) of this section, under section 5A" and in subsection (2)".

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take the following Lords Amendments: No. 53, in page 35, line 21, leave out "subsection (1A)" and insert:
subsections (1A) and (1B)".
No. 55, in page 36, line 37, after "5A" insert:
except as regards registration under section 5A(0)".

Mr. Carlisle: I think that it will be convenient if we take also the following Lords Amendments:
No. 56, in page 37, line 4, at beginning insert:
(0) Subject to the provisions of subsections (4) and (4A) below, a citizen of any country mentioned in section 1(3) of this Act, being a person of full age and capacity, shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he satisfies the Secretary of State that—
(a) he is patrial within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 by virtue of section 2(1)(d) of that Act or of the reference thereto in section 2(1A); and
(b) he fulfils the condition in subsection (2) below."
No. 58, in line 16, after "subsection" insert "(0)(b) or".
No. 59, in line 37, after "of" insert:
his close connection with the United Kingdom or, if he is applying for registration under subsection (1),".
No. 60, in line 38, at end insert:
(4A) A person who has renounced citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies under this Act shall not be entitled to be registered as a citizen thereof under subsection (0) above, but may be so registered with the approval of the Secretary of State.
No. 61, in page 38, line 4, at beginning insert:
(1A) Except in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, subsection (1) above shall not apply to the functions of the Secretary of State as regards registration under section 5A(0) of this Act; and in its application to any of those islands that section shall have effect as if a reference to that island were substituted in section 5A(4) for the first reference to the United Kingdom.
(1B) Subject to subsection (1A) above,".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House, so be it.

Mr. Carlisle: These Amendments seek to provide that a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country who is a patrial under Clause 2(1)(d) because his mother was born in the United Kingdom shall be entitled to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on completion of five years' residence in the United Kingdom. The same entitlement extends to the wife of such a man if she is a Commonwealth citizen. The Government brought forward these Amendments in another place in pursuance of an undertaking given on Report by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The general position in future under this Measure will be that Commonwealth citizens will be able to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on satisfying the Secretary of State that they are of good character and have sufficient knowledge of the English language, that they intend to reside in the United Kingdom, and that they have been ordinarily resident here for five years, or such shorter period as the Secretary of State in the special circumstances of a particular case accepts. But even when those conditions are satisfied registration in general is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. By the Amendment, which was made to meet an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend, those who are patrial under Clause 2(1)(d), as their mother was born in the United Kingdom, will have an entitlement as such to registration.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I suppose that I am really raising a point of order. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Amendment No. 60. Did he speak to it?

Mr. Carlisle: No.

Mr. Rees: I should like to ask one or two questions about that Amendment, because it raises a concept that I have not met before. It concerns a person who has renounced his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies under this Measure. Is there any difference in the meaning of renunciation under this Measure, and its meaning in another context? The Amendment says that a person who has so renounced his citizenship
shall not be entitled to be registered as a citizen thereof under subsection (O) above, but may be so registered with the approval of the Secretary of State ".

My second question is whether the renunciation is renunciation under the Act, as it will be, or is in general. If someone has renounced his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, what circumstances will the Secretary of State take into account in considering whether to allow him to become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies again?
In Committee we were involved in debating the complicated issue of dual citizenship, and how a person could be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and also a citizen of a foreign country. I learned a great deal during those days. The Minister of State will recall that the question was raised the way in which an immigration officer decides under what terms a person has come here. He may have an American passport, and have every right to be considered patrial by virtue of his father's birth in this country.
It may be that by the very fact of taking citizenship of another country somebody renounces his citizenship of this country. I just do not know. Does the renunciation have to be a deliberate step, or can a person find that he has renounced his citizenship by doing something which gives him the citizenship of another country?
This is a most complicated field and I should be the last to ask that the Minister should have the full details before him. But I should like some explanation of why this is in the Bill. As he has admitted that he did not deal with this, we should be grateful.

Mr. Carlisle: With leave of the House. I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for not dealing with this Amendment, which provides that a person who has renounced his citizenship should not be entitled to registration but that he may be registered at the Secretary of State's discretion. The answer to his question is that one can renounce one's citizenship by making a voluntary declaration. It is difficult standing here to envisage circumstances in which a person might wish to apply to be reregistered who had by some act renounced his citizenship. We feel that cases are likely to be rare, but that they could happen and that it would be right not that such a person should be able to register as of right but that there should be discretion.
But this is not a new concept. Renunciation is provided for in Section 19 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. The Amendment is identical with words in Section 6(3) of that Act, which specifically provides that a person who has renounced or been deprived of his citizenship shall not be entitled to be registered but may be registered with the approval of the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 57, in page 37, line 12, after "English" insert "or Welsh".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I believe that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 62, in page 38, line 8, after "English" insert "or Welsh".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Appendix A to Schedule 1 provides that a Commonwealth citizen or an Irish citizen who applies for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies must, among other things, satisfy the Secretary of State that he has sufficient knowledge of English. I am glad to say that, since 1967, statutory recognition has been given to Welsh as an official language, and the Amendment provides that a knowledge of Welsh should be equally applicable.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I can see the point which the Minister of State has made, that, under the Welsh Language Act, Welsh is an official language. As a Welshman born, I am very pleased at that. I wondered whether to chance my arm by doing what was done in the other place and thanking the hon. Gentleman in Welsh, but since it has been done before, why do it again?
But although Welsh is an official language, there are other parts of the United Kingdom with their own language. Although, on strict legal logic, only Welsh may be an official language, in other parts of the country old languages are spoken. There are parts of the world, particularly Canada, where the language of the West Coast of Scotland is spoken. Is there no way of administering immigration

control so that another language could be accepted? Can it be only an official language?

Mr. Powell: This is an example of one type of legislation in which Parliament inserts words in an Act not because they should be there: it does it knowing that they should not be there but for the sake of a quiet life.
I yield to no one in the value I attach to the Welsh language and my desire that it should not only live but should be a living language for more people than it is today. But it is absurd that we should make it an alternative qualification of an immigrant that he should have a sufficient knowledge of the Welsh language. It has nothing whatever to do with the reasons for subsection (d), as everyone knows perfectly well. We are doing an absurd thing, knowing it to be an absurd thing. Perhaps our demerit may be the less for the fact that one Member says so.

Mr. Bidwell: I share that view. Presumably, if someone speaks only Welsh and wants to come to London, that is all right, although he would have certain difficulties in communication. This matter is not as simple as the Bill suggests. There is an element of pandering. One of the complaints which one hears in immigrant areas—one hears it less with each new generation—is that those coming to this country should have a fair standard of English or ability to communicate. I have never thought that this could be written down as an ironbound stipulation in all circumstances. To put it in the Statute makes it a bit absurd, and the addition of Welsh makes it more so.
How is this test to be carried out? Language was rejected, under the Race Relations Act of 1968, as a means of outlawing discrimination. It was one of the arguments of the present Lord Chancellor that we should write in a full Bill of Rights and outlaw discrimination on these grounds. But I have enough experience of industry to know how vital is the ability to communicate in English as it is spoken—and it is not Oxford English or even House of Commons English in British industry. Standards have to be laid down. In dangerous shunting yards, for instance, like those where I was employed as a head shunter, it was vital when agreeing to the admission of


immigrant labour that this condition should be satisfied.
8.30 p.m.
It seems that althought I have arrived at a conclusion on this issue similar to that arrived at by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I have done so not in a party-wise concept but through a lack of understanding. I do not know what this provision means and I should like more information about it.
For example, how is this test to be carried out? When a person wishes to become naturalised after five years does he merely sign a form to show that he has achieved a certain standard in the English or Welsh language? May we be told how this test is conducted, and by whom?

Mr. Peter Archer: I intervene rather on impulse to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I have no constituency or personal interest in the matter in that I am neither a prospective immigrant nor Welsh-speaking. However, I do not see why it should be ipso facto absurd to make the speaking of Welsh a possible qualification for registration as a British citizen.
Presumably the requirement that the applicant should speak either English or Welsh reveals that he has taken the trouble sufficiently to identify himself with this community so as to make it right that he should be a part of it. One is led to wonder what possible harm could be done by the Amendment and how many Welsh-speaking immigrants who do not speak English are likely to flood into this country. One suspects that if they have gone to the trouble to learn the Welsh language, or have had much communication with Wales in that language, they will probably want to go to a Welsh-speaking part of Wales rather than come here. Why should we seek to prevent them from doing so?
Is there not a tendency these days to restrict intercourse between different countries? We are at this stage discussing not patriality, the right to immigrate here, but the granting of citizenship. Assuming that someone is suitable to be a United Kingdom citizen on every other

ground, why should he be excluded if he speaks Welsh but not English?
There is in Patagonia a Welsh-speaking community who have preserved the language, habits and culture of the fatherland of their great grandfathers who immigrated there last century. I assume that if one of their number wished to return to these shores, he would go to a Welsh-speaking part of Wales. It defeats me to know why anyone should be anxious to keep him out.
I echo the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall: how does the Secretary of State satisfy himself that a person has a sufficient knowledge of English? If he can fill up a form in English, does that of itself assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has sufficient knowledge of the language? If not, must he undergo an examination? If so, how academic is it? What is required of him in the use of English? Provided he can understand the directions of a policeman, traffic signs and buy goods in the shops, is more required?

Mr. Sharples: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the questions that have been raised on this subject.
The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) made my case for me and I do not think I need add to the arguments he adduced. The test is, I understand, normally conducted by interview. There is no written examination and the interview is conducted so as merely to discover whether the person has a working knowledge of the language. It is designed to see that he is able to take a full part in the life of the community which he seeks to join. There is nothing formal about it. He is not asked to give his life story or the history of his family. It is possible, without going into those matters, for the officer to gain sufficient knowledge of the person.

Mr. Bidwell: I have in mind many immigrants from India who have gained a good working knowledge of English as a result of working in factories but whose wives, because of the number of Indian women in the localities in which they live, have no great desire to learn English. They do not feel the need to learn our language. What will occur if the male immigrant seeks to take British citizenship when his wife does not have the same


ability to communicate in the English language?

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question. In fact, when the husband registers, the wife has an absolute right to register also.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked why other languages should not be included. But as he himself pointed out, Welsh is now a statutory language. He also mentioned another reason, that the number of people who speak only Welsh and who are likely to settle here will be very small. In any event, the number of Gaelic-speaking people, even in this country—Gaelic is the only other language of which one can think in this context—is very small indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AS TO CONTROL ON ENTRY ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 63, in page 39, line 6, at end insert:
(5) An immigration officer, for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there are persons he may wish to examine under paragraph 2 below, may search any ship or aircraft and anything on board it, or any vehicle taken off a ship or aircraft on which it has been brought to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment adds a provision giving immigration officers power to search ships, aircraft and vehicles brought into this country by sea or air by people who are liable to examination under paragraph (2).
Under the law—and under the Bill as originally drafted—immigration officers have no power to search for smuggled immigrants in the way that Customs officers have power to search for smuggled goods. Their only power of search relates to passengers and their baggage.
I think it fair to say that the growth in recent years of a traffic in illegal immigrants makes it desirable that there should be the power given by the Amendment to search ships, aircraft and vehicles. One thinks, in particular, of the vehicle coming in by ferry, in which there may be someone concealed in the boot. At present, there is no power to search that vehicle.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 64, in page 40, line 27, leave out from "with" to "proceedings" in line 28.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): We can conveniently consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 65, in page 40, line 28, after "Act" insert "or for an offence".

Mr. Sharples: Paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 2 in its present form provides that any documents produced by, or found on, a passenger when examined by an immigration officer may be detained by the officer for up to seven days in any case and for longer if he is of opinion that they may be needed in connection with legal proceedings. We discussed this matter at some length in Standing Committee, and it was felt by some hon. Members, notably by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), I think, that an immigration officer should not have power to retain documents in connection with civil proceedings. I gave an undertaking that I would consider the point and try to meet it.
The effect of the Amendments is that a document may be retained only if the immigration officer is of opinion that it may be needed in connection with proceedings on an appeal under the Bill or for an offence. That meets the undertaking which I gave.

Mr. Peter Archer: We are most grateful to the Minister of State. He has completely fulfilled his undertaking.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 67, in page 47, line 4, at end insert:

".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, in either of the following cases. that is to say,—
(a) where directions are given in respect of an illegal entrant under paragraph 9 of 10 above; and
(b) where a person has lawfully entered the United Kingdom without leave by virtue of section 8(1) of this Act, but directions are given in respect of him under paragraph 13(2)(a) above or, in a case within paragraph 13(2)(a), under paragraph 14;
the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft in which he arrived in the United Kingdom shall be liable to pay the Secretary of State on demand any expenses incurred by the latter in respect of the custody, accommodation or main tenance of that person at any time after his arrival while he was detained or liable to be detained under paragraph 16 above.

(2) If, before the directions for a person's removal from the United Kingdom have been tarried out, he is given leave to remain in he United Kingdom, no sum shall be demanded under sub-paragraph (I) above for expenses incurred in respect of that person and any sum already demanded and paid shall be refunded.

(3) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not have effect in relation to directions which, in consequence of an appeal under this Act, are for the time being of no effect; and the expenses to which that sub-paragraph applies include expenses in conveying the person in question to and from the place where he is detained or accommodated unless the journey is made for the purpose of attending an appeal by him under this Act."

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment inserts into Schedule 2 an additional paragraph relating to the liability of carrying companies for detention costs. Paragraph 19 of the Schedule already provides, with certain exceptions, that where leave to enter has been refused the cost of detaining a passenger pending removal is to be borne by the carrying company which brought him here. The corresponding provision of the existing law, under the Immigration Appeals Act, 1969 and the Aliens Order, 1969, apply not only where entry has been refused but also where directions are given for removal of an illegal immigrant or a crew member, without express refusal.
These cases were overlooked while the the Bill was being prepared. It is our intention that the situation should be

exactly what it was before, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 69, in page 47, line 14, at end insert:

"20A.—(1) A person detained under paragraph 16(1) above pending examination may, if seven days have elapsed since the date of his arrival in the United Kingdom, be released on bail by an adjudicator on his entering into a recognizance or, in Scotland, bail bond conditioned for his appearance before an immigration officer at a time and place named in the recognizance or bail bond or at such other time or place as may in the meantime be notified to him in writing by an immigration officer.

(2) The conditions of a recognizance or bail bond taken under this paragraph may include conditions appearing to the adjudicator to be likely to result in the appearance of the person bailed at the required time and place; and any recognizance shall be with or without sureties as the adjudicator may determine.

(3) In any case in which an adjudicator has power under this paragraph to release a person on bail, the adjudicator may, instead of taking the bail, fix the amount and conditions of the bail (including the amount in which any sureties are to be bound) with a view to its being taken subsequently by any such person as may be specified by the adjudicator; and on the recognizance or bail bond being so taken the person to be bailed shall be released.

20B.—(1) Where a recognizance entered into under paragraph 20A above appears to an adjudicator to be forfeited, the adjudicator may by order declare it to be forfeited and adjudge the persons bound thereby, whether as principal or sureties, or any of them, to pay the sum in which they are respectively bound or such part of it, if any, as the adjudicator thinks fit; and an order tinder this sub-paragraph shall specify a magistrates' court or, in Northern Ireland, court of summary jurisdiction, and—
(a) the recognizance shall be treated for the purposes of collection, enforcement and remission of the sum forfeited as having been forfeited by the court so specified: and
(b) the adjudicator shall, as soon as practicable, give particulars of the recognizance to the clerk of that court.

(2) Where a person released on bail under paragraph 20A above as it applies in Scotland fails to comply with the terms of his bail bond, an adjudicator may declare the bail to be forfeited, and any bail so forfeited shall be transmitted by the adjudicator to the sheriff court having jurisdiction in the area where the proceedings took place, and shall be treated as having been forfeited by that court.

(3) Any sum the payment of which is enforceable by a magistrates' court in England or Wales by virtue of this paragraph shall be treated for the purposes of the Justices, of the Peace Act 1949 and, in particular, section 27 thereof as being due under a recognizance forfeited by such a court and as being Exchequer moneys.

(4) Any sum the payment of which is enforceable by virtue of this paragraph by a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland shall, for the purposes of section 20(5) of the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, be treated as a forfeited recognizance.

20C.—(1) An immigration officer or constable may arrest without warrant a person who has been released by virtue of paragraph 20A above—

(a) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to break the condition of his recognizance or bail bond that he will appear at the time and place required or to break any other condition of it, or has reasonable ground to suspect that that person is breaking or has broken any such other condition; or
(b) if, a recognizance with sureties having been taken, he is notified in writing by any surety of the surety's belief that that person is likely to break the first-mentioned condition, and of the surety's wish for that reason to be relieved of his obligations as a surety;
and paragraph 17(2) above shall apply for the arrest of a person under this paragraph as it applies for the arrest of a person under paragraph 17.

(2) A person arrested under this paragraph—

(a) if not required by a condition on which he was released to appear before an immigration officer within twenty-four hours after the time of his arrest, shall as soon as practicable be brought before an adjudicator or, if that is not practicable within those twenty-four hours, before a justice of the peace acting for the petty sessions area in which he is arrested or, in Scotland, the sheriff; and
(b) if required by such a condition to appear within those twenty-four hours before an immigration officer, shall be brought before that officer.

(3) An adjudicator, justice of the peace or sheriff before whom a person is brought by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above—

(a) if of the opinion that that person has broken or is likely to break any condition on which he was released, may either—

(i) direct that he be detained under the authority of the person by whom he was arrested; or
(ii) release him, on his original recognizance or on a new recognizance, with or without sureties, or, in Scotland, on his original bail or on new bail; and
(b) if not of that opinion, shall release him on his original recognizance or bail.

20D. The power to make rules of procedure conferred by section 22 of this Act shall include

power to make rules with respect to applications to an adjudicator under paragraphs 20A to 20C above and matters arising out of such applications."

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
On Report an Amendment was moved by the Opposition to provide that a person detained under paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 2—that is, pending a decision on whether he is to be admitted—should not be kept in detention for longer than seven days unless the magistrates were satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for continuing to detain him.
When I replied on that occasion I agreed in principle that for a longer period of detention under paragraph 16(1) there should be some form of reference to an independent authority, and I undertook that a Government Amendment would be introduced in another place to meet the point. The Government Amendment which we have before us now provides that a person who is still detained under paragraph 16(1) seven days after his arrival in the United Kingdom, without his examination under paragraph 2 being completed, is to have the same right to apply to an adjudicator for bail as is given by paragraph 24 of the Schedule to someone appealing against refusal of entry. That meets the undertaking which I then gave.

Mr. Peter Archer: I hope that the Minister of State, who has been most helpful throughout these proceedings, will not feel that we always unleash upon his head the wrath which some of us feel against the way the Government have handled some of these matters. We are grateful for his undertaking, which was a concession, and we are grateful that he has faithfully fulfilled it. But this is a difficult and complicated Amendment, as anyone can see by a glance at the Paper.
Once again, we can only wish that we had a little more time to study the Amendment. There are technicalities here which will have to be sorted out by courts which are not yet convened, by judges who have not yet been appointed, and, probably, by unhappy detainees who have not as yet been detained. It would have been so much better for all concerned if we had had a little more time to think about it.
8.45 p.m.
I want to put this on the record because at some stage someone will no doubt say that if the Government got it wrong the Opposition did not point it out. In Committee I understood the Solicitor-General to assure us that any powers which we required existed already. Incidentally, I did not give him notice that I would make this point. We raised the matter again on Report, and the Minister of State then undertook to study it. The Amendment was introduced without a great deal of explanation in Committee in another place, and I make no complaint about that. All that I can attempt to do now is to look through it and make one or two comments about some of the more obvious points. I hope that some of my hon. Friends can make up for my shortcomings.
We begin with the fact that it is an immigration officer to whom this substantial power over the freedom of individuals is entrusted. I make no complaint about the normal standard of immigration officers, most of whom are dedicated men, trying hard to do a very difficult job, and perhaps not sufficiently often being complimented. Perhaps they receive more kicks than recognition of their services in the House as well as in other places. But I am old-fashioned enough to believe that where possible it should be to the ordinary system of courts that the power to control the freedom of the individual to safeguard the elementary rights of individuals to personal freedom is entrusted. I cannot think of any other administrative system in this country in which we entrust powers over bail of this kind to administrative authorities. I am less than happy about it, and I am still not convinced of the reasons why it should not be to the courts that the power is entrusted.
Secondly, I notice that:
An immigration officer or constable may arrest without warrant a person who has been released
under these powers of bail
(a) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to break the conditions of his recognizance …".
We appreciate the difficulties. We are dealing with a matter in which there is a grave danger that some people will

attempt to evade the law. Where there is such a danger, and if it is then decided that a person might properly be released upon bail, someone obviously must also have the power to ensure that he does not suddenly melt away into the underworld and disappear. But those concerned presumably have someone here in a position to vouch for them and act as surety.
We are sometimes led to wonder whether the Administration, in which term I include the whole body of officials and Ministers, is not only too ready to give someone the power to arrest without warrant. Perhaps it is in the nature of Government. We entrust that power to our police officers only under very limited conditions, but here we have an immigration officer being entrusted with the power, not where someone has actually committed an offence—the question of an offence does not arise—but where that person at some stage may have been suspected of requiring further investigation, and where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he might in future be in breach of the conditions of his recognizance. Could not a formula have been found that was a little more mindful of the right of ordinary individuals not to be too readily imprisoned, not to put too fine a point on it?
It may be because of the breakneck speed with which we were confronted with the document, the late hour of the evening, and the fact that some of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and I, have been trying desperately to keep abreast of Amendments, not all of which we have had an opportunity to study, that when I looked at paragraph 20 C (2) I had to read it four times before appreciating what it meant.
Subparagraph (2)(a) says:
if not required by a condition on which he was released to appear before an immigration officer within twenty-four hours after the time of his arrest, shall as soon as practicable be brought before an adjudicator
If someone is required by a condition of his bail to appear before an immigration officer once he is arrested it is no longer a voluntary matter at what time he appears before the immigration officer. It might have been a little more happily drafted, but I now understand what is


meant. The effective words are "the time". Taking the time of his arrest, and then taking the time when bail was granted, one asks whether it was within 24 hours of that time that he was required voluntarily to appear before an immigration officer. For once, it might have been better if this had appeared in the rules, because then we should have had time to think about it and perhaps have improved upon it. We have not had time to think about a possible redrafting. We can only comment on it in passing.
As my noble Friend, Lord Gardiner, said in another place, our immigration law in general already tends to be less than hospitable, and less than democratic. Foreigners are expected to put up with things which would arouse an outcry if they were applied to citizens of this country. We are all too ready to arrest without warrant, to restrict the right to appeal, and to remove from the courts the power to safeguard their freedom.
I recognise that this is a difficult question. We cannot run the risk that someone can effectively and successfully evade the immigration law under cover of these provisions. However, because it is a difficult question it is important to get the balance right and to ensure that this is as accurate as human thought could get it.
There have been many examples during the course of the proceedings on the Bill when the Government did not get matters right in the first place and when it took a succession of appeals to the Government over a succession of stages before finally we got a concession which sometimes commended itself to this side. Sometimes the concession did not go far enough.
This is an example of a provision which required careful thought over a number of stages. Once again I have unleashed on the head of the Minister of State, who is not personally responsible for the short notice that we have had, our complaint that where he has attempted helpfully to fulfil an undertaking that he gave to us he has not given us an opportunity to investigate his homework. That, for him, may be a matter of relief. For us it is a matter of some anxiety.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley

Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) in complaining bitterly about the shortage of time allotted for us to consider a matter of grave import regarding civil liberties. It is scandalous. We have not been given an opportunity to consider Amendments that we might otherwise have moved to these provisions.
At some stage someone will say that the Opposition was not sufficiently vigilant in these matters. That assertion would be untrue. It is wrong that the Government should impose this burden upon the House. It is wrong that we should deal so casually with such matters.
The most important of these provisions deal with bail, which is regarded in this country as a right. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton that bail should be dealt with by the courts. Adjudicators do not yet have the every-day experience of judges and magistrates.
There is no provision for an appeal against a decision by the adjudicator, and that is a grave deficiency. Will the Government have second thoughts? If not, will they explain why these provisions are drafted in this way? Why have the Government not seriously considered these matters until the eleventh hour? I strongly urge the need for an appeal to somebody, preferably a judge in chambers, as we argued in Committee.
I also agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the powers vested in the police. I am sorry to upset the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, who has played such a notable part in the debates this evening. No doubt he wants to get away, but he will have to be detained here a little longer.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I am here to answer the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Davis: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to be able to give him the opportunity for further education.
We are here vesting in the police powers which they do not have in other respects. They will be able to arrest if they believe that someone might commit an offence. That is a very grave


power, which caused Lord Gardiner serious concern.
There have been many instances of people being detained and waiting for a long time for a decision from the Home Office as to whether they are to be deported. This is a serious reflection on the present procedure. I hope that the Minister of State will encourage the Home Office to take much speedier decisions when representations have been made. I know of a number of instances of people being kept waiting in prison month after month. Whatever the result of the determination of the Home Office, the decision should be communicated much more quickly, for there is hardly anything which causes people more anxiety than not knowing what the future holds for them.

Mr. Sharples: By leave of the House; I entirely agree with the last words of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). All of us who have to deal with these cases are concerned that there is sometimes a long period when a person has to be kept in detention, or waiting, while a decision is made. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) will know that the reason is often that inquiries have to be made in the country of origin, and it is sometimes very difficult to get answers to them. One is often faced with the choice of making a decision which may, in the absence of sufficient information, be adverse to the person concerned, or keeping him waiting while the search continues, references are made, and inquiries are pursued. Nonetheless, it is a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend and to me that from time to time people have had to be kept in detention much longer than one would wish.
9.0 p.m.
This is the first time that any form of appeals machinery has been introduced. This is an appeal to an adjudicator. We considered carefully whether it should be an appeal to an adjudicator or to the courts. We came down in favour of an appeal to the adjudicator because these are cases of people who have not been admitted to this country. The adjudicator, unlike the court, is used to dealing with immigration cases, and has the experience which will enable him to judge whether a person is likely to abscond. He is

dealing with cases like this all the time. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central asked whether there should be further appeal machinery. I presume that he was thinking of appeal to the court or tribunal. I do not think that in this case, where we are introducing an appeal for the first time, further appeal machinery is either right or necessary. In cases of this kind we want to try to release the person and make the decision as soon as possible. If a decision cannot be made we want to release the person under the conditions discussed earlier, subject to his reporting to an immigration officer or to the police.
It is not in the interests of the Home Office that a person should be kept in detention longer than is necessary if he is not likely to abscond or take advantage of his liberty.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not think that will do. In the case of an appeal against a refusal—an appeal from a magistrates court—the matter can go to a judge in chambers that very day, or a day or two later. There is no question of immense delay or hardship to the person seeking leave to appeal. A man may feel that he has been deprived wrongly of that benefit and he has no safeguards under the present provision. Why cannot the additional safeguard which applies to the ordinary criminal offence be available in such cases, with an appeal to a judge in chambers?

Mr. Sharples: We are dealing not with a criminal offence but with the detention of a person not admitted to this country—a person detained because if he is released it is thought that it will not be possible to keep track of him. It is for that reason that we have decided that the appeal should go to an adjudicator.
I appreciate that these Amendments are extremely complex. One of the reasons why it took some time for them to be tabled is their very complexity. I made clear earlier that this was bound to be a fairly complex operation. I appreciate the situation and apologise to the Opposition and the House for the very short notice that there has been. I realise that there has been very little time to consider this most complex matter. The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) will


understand why so little time has been available.

Mr. Peter Archer: I was not in any way complaining about the tardiness on the Minister's part in tabling the Amendments, but about the fact that we have had this debate foisted upon us today, after being told earlier that it was not proposed that the Act should come into operation until some time next year.

Mr. Sharples: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate the difficulties faced by a Government at the end of a Session of Parliament. I need say no more.

Question put and agreed to.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: May I say what a relief it is to have this short debate at about nine o'clock when it was expected to come on at about three or four a.m. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State joins in this expression of delight.
In 1962, I was a British representative at the General Assembly of the United Nations, and in a debate on the South African administration of South-West Africa I said:
Apartheid is morally abominable, intellectually grotesque and spiritually indefensible.
At that time I had not visited South-West Africa and I was basing my opinion on what had been taking place in South Africa—for example, the Bantu Education Act and the Group Areas Act. My words were strong words and they led to considerable criticism on the part of the authorities in South Africa. But I must say to my friends in South Africa that I do not withdraw a single word, as terrible acts have taken place and were taking place at about that time.
However, the House will agree that, nine years later, changes have occurred. In South Africa the races, except the coloured, are now separated and better amenities are being provided for them. Economic standards are improving. The good neighbour policy pursued by the present Prime Minister of South Africa is paying dividends to his country and is, I am sure, bound in due course to alter the status of the non-white in the Republic. Even more terrible events have taken place elsewhere in Africa during the last nine years. The House will recall the Congo, the Nigerian civil war, what has happened in Zanzibar, in the coups, military Governments and one-party States which have sprung into existence in the past nine years. Let us therefore be honest enough to compare like with like and Africa with Africa.
It remains to be seen whether the concept of Bantustans can work in South Africa. I have been impressed by what I have seen during two visits to the


Transkei, but I find it extremely difficult to see how the much fragmented Zululand can emerge as one united State.
It would be right for me to digress for a moment from the main burden of my speech to say how much we on both sides of the House welcome the visit to this House of the leaders of the Xhosa and Zulu nations—Paramount Chief Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei, and Unntwona Buthelezi, the Chief Executive of the Zulu Territorial Authority who, together with Chief Executive Councillor Chief Mangope of Tswana Authority, will be paying us a visit during the next few days. We look forward to discussing many problems during their visit to this country and, in particular, to this House.
I visited South-West Africa in May this year and soon discovered that the situation there bore no comparison to the situation in South Africa. South-West Africa is vast. The tribes are small and are mutually antagonistic. However problematical the future of the Bantustans in the Republic, this concept appears to me to make considerable sense in South-West Africa.
I wish to recall briefly the recent history of that territory as it has a considerable bearing on the present situation. In the mid-nineteenth century the dominant tribes were the Hereros and the Hottentots, now called the Nama. These tribes were locked in almost continual warfare. In 1884 came the annexation by the Germans, and the Hereros became their allies, only to rebel in 1904 when the tribe was defeated and nearly annihilated by the Germans at Waterberg. In 1914 the territory was taken by South African forces, and in 1920 South Africa received the League of Nations mandate for the territory. In 1960 Ethiopia and Liberia appealed against this mandate to the Hague Court. They failed by the President's casting vote in 1966. Three months later, the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council voted to place South-West Africa, or, as it is now called, Namibia, under United Nations control. In 1970, a further appeal was made to the Hague Court, and in June this year the court found by a majority of 13 to two against South Africa, the British and the French judges dissenting.
It is not my purpose to discuss the validity of this judgment: it is obviously

a complicated legal matter, and I would not be competent to do so: but, as a layman, I would say that a number of events do cast doubts on the impartiality of the court. For example, the objections to judges who had openly spoken against South Africa prior to the sitting of the court were disallowed by the court itself. South Africa's customary request for the appointment of an act hoc judge was refused. The court did not visit South-West Africa, and it refused an offer of a referendum amongst the people of South-West Africa.
I understand that the Government have upheld Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice's objections and have refused to accept the court's findings, and I hope that my understanding will be confirmed by my hon. Friend when he replies to this debate. That is the first point on which I want to be assured.
I wish, however, to deal with another important point, and that is the practical implications and effects of meeting the United Nations' demands to hand over the territory of Namibia to United Nations administration, and to consider what I suggest would be the inevitable effect which this would have on the people of that territory.
The territory, as I said, is vast, and the tribal groupings are small. I hope the House will forgive me if I quote some figures, because they are very germane to my argument. The largest tribe is the Ovambo, of 293,100 or 43·8 per cent. of the total population. The second largest—I emphasise this, and it may surprise some hon. Members—group are the whites, 113,100 or 16·8 per cent. of the total population. Then come the Damara at 54,300 or 8·1 per cent. of the total population; the Herero, at 43,200 or 6·4 per cent. of the total population; the Nama, at 42,600 or 6·4 per cent., again, of the total population; the Okavango, at 34,100 or 5·1 per cent. of the total population; the Caprivians, at 19,500 or 2·9 per cent. of the total population. The remaining tribes are smaller and make up the remaining 10·5 per cent. of the population.
The Ovambos, the largest tribe, live in the north and have always tended to keep themselves to themselves. The Hereros and Nama were hereditary enemies, and the Damara were, in the past, enslaved by the Hereros. I hope the House will


appreciate that with this history of conflict between some of the major tribes it can only be expected that there is precious little love lost between the tribes at the present time. The Herero still see themselves as the dominant tribe and undoubtedly hope to use United Nations intervention to achieve their aim of ruling Namibia. The Ovambos and Okavango are already moving along the road to self-government and are followed by the Damara and the Nama.
In Ovamboland, when I last visited it, I spoke to the chief councillor, Chief Wilpard Shimi, who told me that he was just not interested in the setting up of Namibia and that his own people wanted to run their own affairs without interference from other tribes or from the United Nations, and said that they were now being helped forward by the administering Power. They had a good network of schools and clinics, as well as an excellent training college at Odingwa, the capital. In a five-year development plan for the country itself, which is financed by South Africa, the new irrigation system would cost £¾ million, and water was being brought from the Cuene River in the west and from the Okavango River in the east.
Chief Shimi's country had an executive council, of which he was chairman, and a legislative council, members of which were elected by the tribal councils. Thirty-five per cent. of the Civil Service and nearly 100 per cent. of the primary school teachers were already Ovambos. The chief said that he hoped his territory would be economically viable in about 10 years' time. He was very positive, and so were his councillors whom I met, that they wanted to have nothing to do with the concept of Namibia. Much the same views have been expressed by the Okavango, and the Damara leaders have recently issued a statement two paragraphs of which I will quote to the House:
We Damara accept Damaraland as our home and the country in which we want to enjoy self-determination and exercise our right to exist as an independent nation. We therefore wish to state quite clearly to the United Nations that we do not know that Organisation; that we do not want to know it and that we shall not recognise it.
I think the House will agree that those are very strong words.
The South African Government, when it offered the suggestion of a plebiscite to The Hague Court, in my view knew that it would win a free vote in South-West Africa for the following reason. As I have already said, the majority of the Ovambos, Whites, Damara, Nama and Okavangos want nothing to do with the United Nations, and together these groups make up over 80 per cent. of the population of South West Africa. That is a fact which the House much bear strongly in mind.
In the past 10 years I have made a particular study of guerrilla warfare in Central-Southern Africa and have visited many parts of the frontier from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, Angola, the Caprivi strip, Rhodesia and Mozambique. Generally considered, one of the best organised and led guerrilla organisations was S.W.A.P.O., which was formed in 1960 after the Windhoek riots. Two years later it reached its peak membership of perhaps 10,000. However, it was never supported by the chiefs and headmen, and the advent of internal self-government took away much of its appeal. In 1964 about 800 young men were sent abroad for military training, and in 1966 S.W.A.P.O. announced from its Dar-es-Salaam headquarters that it would lead the fight to free South-West Africa. Military action took place in South-West Africa in that year, which coincided with the first judgment of The Hague Court. It was defeated and there has been no guerrilla activity except in the Caprivi Strip since 1969.
I visited the Caprivi Strip in 1970 and can certify that South Africa has not got a large military base in that area. Incidents have taken place, and are taking place, in Caprivi, including one last month, but these are mainly the mining of roads and tracks by groups which can retreat into Zambia when pursued. This kind of activity can never be effective, and S.W.A.P.O. has lost whatever hold it had in South-West Africa. If this is not so, why did not S.W.A.P.O. mount an offensive to coincide with The Hague Court's recent judgment, as it did in 1966?
I conclude with what is perhaps the most important aspect of this problem, and that is the economic development of the people of South-West Africa. The House must agree—in fact figures have


been published—that much money is being spent by South Africa in developing the African areas of South-West Africa. The cynic might fairly say that this was because of outside pressures. The fact remains that self-government is being implemented and has gone too far to be withdrawn. I do not believe that any South African Government could now withdraw the degree of self-government it has already given to some of the African areas of the territory.
Good road, rail and air communications are provided by South Africa, which also subsidises posts and telegraphs, vital irrigation schemes, education health and so on. The per capita income is one of the highest in Africa at about £260, which is three times that of Zambia and 10 times that of Tanzania. In 1970 alone South Africa spent £100 million on running the railways in the territory. The numbers at school, though still not high enough, have doubled in the past nine years and at Windhoek and Odingwa I saw two of the best African colleges I have seen anywhere in Southern/Central Africa.
Economically and technically, South-West Africa is wholly dependent on South Africa, which is the territory's largest market and provides 80 per cent. of its imports. If the United Nations took over who would provide the manpower, expertise, markets and, above all, the capital that is required to develop this territory? The United Nations is already in debt and I suggest it would have to administer South-West Africa through some other power, and what other power is there than the Republic of South Africa?
My final request to my hon. Friend is this. The Security Council will soon be considering the Hague Court's decision—indeed the Security Council may have considered this decision in the last few hours. I hope very much that the British representative will abstain on this matter to signify the disagreement of the British Government with the Hague Court's decision. But it is expected that the Security Council will go further and suggest a plan to take over Namibia. I suggest this would result in economic disaster for all the people of that territory. I hope Her Majesty's Government will oppose any such impracticable proposals, if necessary by use of the veto, for in

this case I suggest abstention would not be enough. I hope that when my hon. Friend concludes this debate he will be able to say that he broadly agrees with the economic conclusions I have put forward and will be able to give me an assurance on the two points I have advanced, namely Her Majesty's Government's view of the decision of the Court and their view of any attempted takeover of the territory of Namibia or South-West Africa by the United Nations.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on South-West Africa, which has been raised on the Adjournment by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). This will give us an opportunity to discuss some of the very important points which arise out of the advisory opinion of The Hague Court.
There was much that was contentious in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I daresay that some of the contentious items were quite deliberately included. Nevertheless, one would not quarrel with his history of what happened in the early years between the Germans, the Hereros and the Ovambo in South-West Africa. However, one begins to depart from the hon. Gentleman's views when one comes to the stage of discussing exactly who speaks for the African population in South-West Africa.
It is fashionable to say that the chiefs of the tribes are not in favour of the independence of Namibia under the total territory structure and that they would prefer the system to go on as it is. It is fashionable to say that the headmen have similar views. But bearing in mind that the chiefs and headmen probably would lose a tremendous amount of influence and power if there was a proper democratic structure in South-West Africa, it is hardly surprising that their views represent self interest. Indeed I would suggest that the African chiefs are probably as representative of public opinion in that part of Africa as our noble friends in the other place are representative of British opinion.

Mr. Wall: If that is so—and it is of course the case advanced by the Labour side of the House on Rhodesia—why is it that the people of these territories have


not supported the guerrilla force which have entered their countries, but have supported their chiefs and the Governments of those countries?

Mr. Hughes: That sounds all very well, but I believe the African people in South Africa, South-West Africa and in Rhodesia support the guerrilla organisations and do not support the chiefs of their own free will. Simply because there is, apparently, tacit acceptance of the state of affairs as it now is, that does not mean that the people are enthusiastic supporters of the chieftain system. Just as many people in a different context passively accept the existence of the House of Lords, that does not mean that, if the House of Lords had the kind of power that it once had, it would still be acceptable to them.
A great deal is said about the so-called prosperity of South-West Africa being dependent on South Africa and her capital. Much of it does not ring true. The truth is that the riches of South-West Africa have always been administered for the benefit of the 70,000 white people at present living in South-West Africa, now considered to have been encompassed by the South African State. There are lessons to be learnt from this.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice asks why there have not been revolutions and military uprisings of the kind that we have been led to expect. I believe that the guerrilla organisations in South-West Africa have held their hands until such time as the opinion of the International Court of Justice became known and they saw what happened at the United Nations. I accept that the level of military activity is quite small. However, anyone who makes the mistake of thinking that because it is small it will be easily crushed and crushed for ever has not learned the lesson of Vietnam, where so far it has taken 30 or 40 years, and it is still going on towards success.
The encouragement which hon. Members give to revolutionary organisations by saying that we must accept the status quo in Southern Africa is the greatest stimulus to them to get on with the job of creating a revolutionary situation in that part of the world. I should prefer it if the problems of South-West Africa could be solved other than by revolutionary means by the people of the territory

themselves. I have no desire to see innocent blood shed on either side of the colour line, although the majority of that blood will be of those whose skins are darker than our own. If we fail, at this time especially, to give to the people of South-West Africa the kind of support that they need in the United Nations, we shall leave them with no other course than to send out the call to arms and we shall have no other course than to support that call.
I want now to comment on the position at the United Nations. It is important to contrast the initial idea of the mandate given to South Africa by the League of Nations with what South Africa is doing in that territory today. No one can quarrel with the original mandate, which was to be in the paramount interest of the people of the territory of South-West Africa. However, it has long been recognised that that interest has been far from paramount, and Resolution 2145 adopted by the General Assembly on 27th October, 1966, was agreed to by 114 votes to two, the two against being South Africa and Portugal, which gives some idea of the character of the Opposition, and with three abstentions—Britain, France and Malawi—which is a sad expression of the character of those who abstained. That Resolution proclaimed the inalienable right of South-West Africa to freedom and independence.
The intention of that Resolution must be contrasted with the actions of the South-African Government. They set up the Odendaal Commission, which recommended that the territory should be divided into a series of six Bantustans for the major tribes. In carving up the territory, one would have imagined that it would have been divided into six in terms of the indigenous population. Far from that being the case, in fact only a quarter of the area of South-West Africa was allocated to a total of half a million non-whites, whereas the remainder was allocated to 75,000 whites. So there are 500,000 people in a quarter of the territory, and the remaining three-quarters goes to a smaller population.
So far as we know, the only Bantustan who has been set up has been that of the Ovamboland. It is no accident that in the geographical boundaries of the projected Bantustans the majority of the valuable minerals in South-West Africa


lie outside the territories of the so-called homelands. The truth, as any student of what is happening in South Africa must recognise, is that the Bantustans are a fraud and do not mean real freedom at all. I believe that the projected Bantustans are contrary to the spirit of Resolution 2145 of 1966.
The problem of South-West Africa has exercised both the United Nations and the International Court five times since 1945, but this is the first time that the International Court has been asked to rule by the Security Council. This makes the present advisory opinion extremely important. I know that the Government have said—I think that it was the Foreign Secretary—that this was an advisory opinion and, therefore, was not binding on member States. Whether that is legally correct, I do not know. But we cannot dismiss the International Court's ruling as being of no consequence. I believe that it has extremely important consequences. This flows from its first proposal, which is simple and categoric: that South Africa's continued presence in South-West Africa is illegal and that South Africa should withdraw.
If we fail to take consequential action in support of the United Nations then we are saying to South Africa that possession is ten-tenths of the law and that as long as it is there by force of arms it has the right to remain there. The corollary, the opposite, the converse, is that the only way that South Africa will be removed is by force of arms.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, that since 1966, when guerrilla activity started, it has been spasmodic and relatively small. None the less, it is growing. The fact is that South African troops and police are extremely active in South-West Africa. Incidents have been reported of Buccaneers being used in the Caprivi Strip. We know that that is all-important because it is from there that the South Africans are said to have launched their incursion into Zambia.
I believe that we have a tremendous job to do here in facing the realities of the situation. It is no use the hon. Member for Haltemprice saying that the economic prospects are good, that the standard of living of the South-West African people is increasing, and that,

therefore, they do not need any other form of democracy except the Bantustan. This was the old idea in defence of slavery: if one fed and kept one's slaves well, they did not need freedom. We on this side are speaking with real freedom. I am grateful for the opportunity of discussing this matter, even in short detail. I know that some of my hon. Friends would like to join in the debate. I hope that the Government will clearly state, under their policy of abstention—a policy followed by successive Governments over the past 20 years—that they must and will take action in support of the people of that country.

9.34 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for his interesting and well-in-formed speech about South-West Africa, in which he depicted a pattern of events and pressures which is not exactly as many suppose and is more complicated than some may wish to think.
I am also obliged to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) for his contribution. In the course of my remarks I shall seek to answer some of the points which he raised.
It is true that considerable material benefits have been and are being brought to the area by the protecting Power, South Africa. But, as my hon. Friend knows—he made clear how much he deplored the practice of apartheid—we must, despite the material benefits which I have mentioned, deplore how apartheid has been allowed to spread to this territory—a territory, after all, with international status.
We bear in mind that South Africa undertook, in 1920, to promote the material and moral well-being, and the social progress of the territory concerned. I cannot believe that anybody in this House can think that that duty is fully discharged by the introduction of apartheid to the territory, and we cannot condone it. That is how we feel about the moral aspect of this problem.
When we come to the legal aspect, we must examine the matter with a different eye. Hard cases make bad law, and if


we were to follow our sentiment we might—indeed, we would—do harm to the standing and authority of the United Nations, both now and in the future. I hope, therefore, that the House will bear with me while I seek to expound the legal matters and the judgment to which reference has been made. I hope that this will be of interest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.
It will be known to hon. Members that on 21st June the International Court of Justice at The Hague delivered an advisory opinion, which was passed by 13 votes to 2, that
the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under an obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory",
and by 11 votes to 4, in two other paragraphs, called upon both members and non-members of the United Nations to recognise and to act on that advisory opinion.
The crucial question in legal terms concerns the termination of the mandate. As the opinion of the court recognises, any powers of the United Nations to terminate the mandate depend upon the position under the League of Nations, since the mandates system was established by the Versailles Peace Conference within the framework of the League of Nations.
The first question, therefore, is whether the League of Nations had the power to terminate the mandate unilaterally. As to that, neither Article 22 of the Covenant of the League, nor the mandate itself, contains any provision conferring such a power of termination in any circumstances. The notion of revocaability was discussed when the mandate system was established, but objections were raised to it and it was not incorporated either in the Covenant or in the individual mandates.
In those circumstances it is not possible, in our view, to infer a power of unilateral termination. Moreover, the suggestion of the existence of such a power does not accord with the nature of the mandate system. That system gave no executive powers to the League, but only a power to receive and examine reports.
Furthermore, even if the mandate for South-West Africa as such was understood as implying some possibility of revocation in the case of breach, the Council of the League, working within its own constitutional framework, would not have been in a position to exercise that power without the consent of the mandatory. Article 5 of the Covenant provided that the Council of the League must take its decision by unanimity,
except where otherwise expressly provided.
By Article 4, the mandatory was entitled to be present to vote at meetings of the Council concerning the mandate. The mandatory was thus in a position to block any resolution seeking to assert and exercise a power to revoke the mandate. Whatever our views on the drafting of the Covenant in that respect, that was the position.
A number of limited exceptions to the rule of unanimity are contained in the Covenant. There is, however, no provision which could have deprived a mandatory of its vote so as to enable the Council to exercise any powers in relation to the mandate without the mandatory's consent, including a power of revocation if one had existed. It is surely not without significance that the League of Nations never did revoke a mandate, or even try to do so, even though accusations of breach of mandate were made during the League period.
I now come to the General Assembly Resolution No. 2145. The General Assembly is an organ created by the Charter and can only act within the powers conferred upon it by the Charter. The Charter explicity conferred upon the General Assembly powers which, with certain exceptions, are recommendatory only. These very limited exceptions relate to matters such as the admission of new members, the approval of the budget and the apportionment of expenses. There is no provision in them or elsewhere in the Charter which would give the Assembly the powers necessary for the termination of the mandate. The exceptions, therefore, are not of relevance in the present context.
The General Assembly has no general competence of an executive character, and, with the exceptions to which I have referred, there is no basis in the Charter for the attribution to it of competence to adopt Resolutions which are other than


recommendatory. It was for this reason that, during the discussion of Resolution No. 2145 in 1966, the United Kingdom delegation, together with a number of others, expressed serious reservations as to the legal effectiveness of that Resolution.
The arguments before the International Court went into the matter more deeply than had previously been done, but, having given the most careful consideration to the question, Her Majesty's Government are not persuaded by the reasoning advanced in that advisory opinion to sustain the validity of Resolution No. 2145.
To sum up, therefore, for us to be able to agree that there was a power of termination of the mandate, certain propositions of law would have to be established. It is our considered view that these propositions have not been established either in relation to the League or in relation to the General Assembly. Since we have reached the conclusion that the mandate has not been validly terminated, we cannot accept the legal consequences deduced by the court from different premises, and accordingly we cannot accept the conclusions of the court set out in paragraph 133 of its advisory opinion.
Whatever we may all feel about South Africa's actions in its administration of the territory—I have made Her Majesty's Government's attitude to this quite clear, I hope—we are still faced with a question of law, and the serious legal difficulties which the Government encountered earlier have not been dispelled. We attach the greatest importance to the rule of law and also, therefore, to the institutions, such as the International Court of Justice, which uphold that law. And we have given the most careful consideration to this advisory opinion.
As an advisory opinion only, it is not, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North conceded, I think, binding, but it is of course entitled to the very closest consideration and respect. After giving it that consideration, we have concluded that, on the basis of the law as we understand it in this country, we must reject the Court's opinion.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Apart from Resolution No. 2145, the Security Council itself adopted Resolution No.

264, which called upon South Africa to withdraw from its administration of South-West Africa. Would the Minister not agree that the advisory opinion, while it had reservations about Resolution No. 2145, accepted that the Security Council had the power to act? Does not this change the Government's view on past premises?

Mr. Kershaw: I am coming to that point now. There is a point of legal interpretation in the advisory opinion which raises issues far wider than just the question of South—West Africa. I refer to that part of the advisory opinion which asserts that certain Resolutions adopted by the Security Council on South Africa were legally binding—No. 264, for example. It is this part of the majority opinion which seems to the Government to be open to the most serious legal objections.
Some Governments represented on the Security Council may have wished to take a binding decision on South-West Africa, and in order to achieve this, they proposed findings which would have brought the situation within Article 39 of the Charter. But these proposals were not accepted. The Government do not believe that the course of events in the Security Council and in the consultations among its members supports the conclusion of fact asserted in the court's opinion.
As a matter of law, the Government consider that the Security Council can take decisions generally binding on Member States only when the Security Council has made a determination under Article 39 that a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression exists. Only in those circumstances are the decisions binding under Article 25, and no such determination exists in relation to South-West Africa or Namibia. This view is shared by a number of other countries in the United Nations, including the majority of the permanent Members of the Security Council.
As we do not accept the illegality of South Africa's presence in South-West Africa, we do not accept either that we should, as the advisory opinion goes on to suggest in its last two paragraphs, take practical measures to discourage the South African presence in South-West Africa.
We do not accept, for example, that we should discourage trade in or with


South-West Africa. We do not accept that we should discourage investment in that part of the world. We do not think we should cancel the contract made by the late Administration for the supply of our strategic supplies of uranium coming from South-West Africa.
We must accept—I appreciate that this may seem hard to some—as a fact that South Africa is in control of the territory of South-West Africa. We must accept that the efforts of the U.N. to act beyond its capacities are bound to fail. We must accept that such efforts will not be advantageous to the people of South-West Africa.
Given the fact of South Africa's position, we believe that a policy of dialogue with South Africa is more likely to safeguard the true interests of the inhabitants of South-West Africa than a policy of sterile confrontation.
The situation is, of course, unsatisfactory from our point of view and we wish that it could change. We hope that the South African Government for their part will be ready to discuss with others how to implement the trust given to them under the mandate, which must lead ultimately to the principle of the people of South-West Africa freely and fully exercising their just, due and inalienable right to self-determination. I believe that the policy of dialogue with South Africa is now increasingly getting acceptance among other nations in the southern part of Africa and that this may be the way in which this can be done.
I am sorry to have to put the legal position so starkly to the House, but I think there is no way round it. Our opinion about what has been done—it was supported at one time by the late Administration—is, I believe, the best that can be had. We will not in the end benefit South-West Africa by trying to fudge the legal issues, and I am certain that we should take a strictly legal view of this so as not to compromise the future of the U.N. or harm the future of South-West Africa by so doing.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This issue is one of great potential importance for the future not only of Southern Africa but of international relations generally. It has not yet been seen in this country

in that light, and I hope that this debate will be the beginning of a more general one about the future of South-West Africa which, in my view, is of as great potential importance as the future of Rhodesia.
I hope that we will have an opportunity at a later stage to discuss the attitude of the British Government to the Security Council Resolution in a wider debate on a more well-attended occasion than is provided by an Adjournment debate, albeit by an accident of time which gives us rather more room for manœuvre. However, this is a useful opportunity for reflecting a little on the advisory opinion and the attitude of successive British Governments to this problem. The situation has changed considerably as a result of the advisory opinion of the court.
In effect, what the Under-Secretary of State has just said amounts to the fact that we, as a potentially interested party, have been to the fount of justice and have there seen our case turned down; because we have seen our case turned down, we reject this as justice, and we put our considered legal case before the court, saying that our case is better than the majority view of 13 members to two.
Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has been arguing since 1950 that the mandate never passed from the old League of Nations to the United Nations. There is nothing new in his dissenting opinion; he has been arguing it consistently for about 20 years. But if his opinion was right, we never had a United Nations mandate in Tanganyika. Nevertheless, we accepted that the United Nations exercised a mandate in Tanganyika, and we reported to the appropriate committee overseeing trusteeship territories.
If Sir Gerald's opinion had been right in 1950 we, like South Africa, should have been exempt from reporting to the United Nations about our stewardship in Tanganyika. We did not take that view. We have never taken the view that the United Nations was not the legitimate successor to the League of Nations in relation to the stewardship of these territories. It is a bit late in the day to say that we dissent from that view because it happens to be in our interest to do so.
True, on previous occasions we have taken the view that there never was a power of revocation in relation to the trusteeship territories and that, therefore,


that power did not devolve on the United Nations; but that view was seriously considered in a very long advisory opinion of the 13 majority members of the Court and was rejected after careful legal analysis. It was not rejected out of pique, or out of bias. Indeed, the most interesting part of that part of the judgment, which I know will appeal to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), is the quotation from Jan Smuts at the League of Nations in 1920, when he said:
In case of any flagrant and prolonged abuse of this trust"—
namely, the trust of stewardship—
the population concerned should be able to appeal for redress to the League, who should in a proper case assert its authority to the full, even to the extent of removing the mandate and entrusting it to some other State if necessary".
If Jan Smuts thought that one could revoke the mandate I have no doubt that the 13 members of the court, who also thought that one could revoke it, are to be preferred to Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, who did not think that one could, and to the Foreign Office lawyers who have been advising the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Kershaw: It is not only the Foreign Office lawyers, by whom, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman may not be excessively impressed because he may not know exactly who they are—though if he did he would be impressed; it is also my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Lyon: I am even less impressed by that.
Looking at the whole situation, one sees that we are not dealing here with a simple legal problem which can be dealt with in an academic atmosphere. We are dealing with a highly political issue, in which the British Government are seeking to hide behind certain legal niceties which have already been exploded by the majority of the court. Coming down to the legal realities, we are opposing implementation of Resolution 276 of 1970 only because we happen to be the biggest foreign investors in South-West Africa and also the biggest trading nation with South-West Africa.
In the report of the ad hoc committee appointed to look into the relations of States with Namibia, we see from the

reply to its request for information about trading relations with Namibia, and about investment, that we were far and away the biggest traders with, and the biggest investors in, the territory. Japan and West Germany, and most of the European countries, have little trade or investment there, even though West Germany was once a colonial Power. In those circumstances we can see why the British Government are at least minded to take the attitude they do to the legal niceties.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that our view of the law is wrong; that it does not matter what the law is, because this is such a political question and so we should decide as we please; or that we are motivated entirely by financial gain?

Mr. Lyon: I am about to say which of those three it is. It is clear from what I have already said that it is the first and third reason. "Your law is wrong, your politics are bad and your morality is even worse."

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Lyon: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I couched that in inverted commas. It was not intended as an address to the Chair, but simply as the kind of reply that one would make to the question put to me.
The issue is clear. The law stated by the 13 members of the Court who made up the majority opinion is now clearly the international law on the subject. The Government have regularly said that they advocate the rule of law in international affairs. Here they have an opportunity to implement that legal opinion, but they do not do so. They put forward bad legal grounds for objecting to the implementation of the advisory opinion, and I suggest that their motives are simply the economic stake that Great Britain has in South-West Africa.
The argument put forward by earlier Governments for not implementing Resolutions on South-West Africa was that we had no physical power to intervene. But the implementation of Resolution No. 276 does not require a physical power to intervene; it does not call for the use of force. It says that all Powers should abstain from any acts which give an


appearance of legality to the South African presence in South-West Africa, and such acts include economic and trading relations with that territory. We can adhere to the terms of the Resolution by simply withdrawing the economic links that we have. Whatever the case for not withdrawing economic ties with South Africa, it does not appear to apply to South-West Africa. The scale of the economic activity is much less, and it would be much less hurtful to this country if we did withdraw. Many of the ventures are simply beginning, and we could take a decision which would mean that we pursued them no further.
In the evidence which the British Government gave to the ad hoc committee the following items were listed as the kind of foreign investment which we had in South-West Africa. It was said that:
Shell and British Petroleum are operating a concession to explore for petroleum and natural gas. H.M. Mining and Exploration Company in association with Syracuse Oils of the United Kingdom hold concessions for exploration for petroleum and natural gas. The South West Africa Company Limited is registered in London, although 90 per cent. of their shares are owned by … South African mining interests.
It was also said that a number of British firms had interests in the fur trade from South-West Africa. All that is on a relatively small scale, albeit that it happens to be one of the biggest foreign interests in the territory.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Lyon: The biggest interest of all is that of Rio Tinto Zinc in the uranium mine at Rossing. The Under-Secretary makes the valid political point that the concession was exploited in the period of a Labour Government and that the contract which was made by R.T.Z. with the Atomic Energy Authority was sanctioned in the declining days of the last Government.
The advisory opinion of the court has changed the situation to the point where we should now say that the contract should not be implemented. The contract

is not producing much uranium. The Atomic Energy Authority could find its uranium elsewhere. If we mean it when we say that we adhere to the rule of international law we should observe this part of the court's advisory opinion. As we are the biggest investors in the territory we have the biggest stake in upholding the authority of the United Nations in this respect.
What is the alternative? The hon. Member for Haltemprice paints a glowing picture of what has happened under South African supervision in South-West Africa. He says that because the activity of S.W.A.P.O. has declined since 1968 it indicates that there is general assent by the people of the tribes to the new Bantustans which are being created.
The hon. Gentleman fails to pay much attention to the trials that took place, at Johannesburg and Pretoria, of 35 of the major leaders of S.W.A.P.O. at a crucial time. If their leaders are taken away and imprisoned, and if there is the kind of security system which South Africa has and which is exemplified in the evidence in the case against the Dean of Johannesburg—where they rely on informers for information—clearly there will not be the kind of political activity in the territory which might be expected in legitimate circumstances, and even in illegitimate circumstances.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman has missed my main point, which was that I could discover no desire for Namibian unity in the territory. I found that there were very strong tribal feelings, which were mutually antipathetic. Tribes wanted to become independent, self-governing States, not part of a nation which does not exist.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently knowledgeable about the affairs of Africa to know that at certain stages of the development of African territories that is not an unnatural reflection of opinion. In areas north of the Zambesi where territories have been given their independence, the tribal factor, although still a very sensitive part of political relationships, is none the less being overcome.

Mr. Wall: Oh, come.

Mr. Lyon: The situation which has occurred in many of the newly emergent


territories where tribal trouble has developed is that gradually, partly by political skill, sometimes by the use of political authority, the tribal divisions are being overcome.
Of course it is in the interests of South Africa to try to exacerbate and exaggerate tribal divisions. That is exactly why South Africa took part in the Biafran adventure—to indicate that the tribes were more important than the new-found nationhood of these newly emergent territories. In the areas where the South Africans have political control they try to exacerbate these tribal differences. I have no doubt that the Ovamba still think of the Hereros as their enemies. They are not encouraged to think of each other as one nation; equally, inside South Africa.
But even in South Africa there is a growing sense of the black people finding a new unity in their privation. They find it despite the attempt to cram them into Bantustan. That would happen in South-West Africa if it was under United Nations trusteeship and was being led gradually towards the concept of one nation with a good democratic structure to provide new leadership and new political parties.
The reason why it is important for the United Nations to assert its mandate in this area is not loss of investment but the creation of more political activity and a sense of nationhood. No doubt the chiefs of whom the hon. Member for Haltemprice spoke were sincere in their view that they did not want the United Nations presence, but as long as they maintain that attitude the prospect for their people of a new kind of maturity and a new assertion of political authority in what is their country will never be found. It is for that reason that the United Nations mandate should be asserted by all civilised nations.
The Under-Secretary recognised this when he said that we deplored the spread of apartheid in this area. It is not good enough for the Government to deplore apartheid and then to go on to say that there is nothing that they can do about it, when there are items within our control. The case that we should abstain on this crucial resolution before the U.N. is far from made out and I hope that even at this last moment the Government will have second thoughts about it.
It has been suggested that if any other kind of resolution is put forward in the Security Council about further action which should be taken to implement the judgment we will veto it. If so, it is a serious blow to the prestige of this country in the U.N. But, even more important, it would be a dangerous precedent for the African nations in relation to their conduct in Southern Africa.
In 1966, when the International Court decided by that one vote on a technicality that it could not consider the application of Ethiopia and the other countries in relation to South-West Africa, the effect in Africa was extreme The result of African disillusionment with the International Court and international institutions was a fillip to the growing impetus towards nationalist movements, the freedom lighters. It was after that judgment that the O.A.U. set up its fund to help the freedom fighters.
If the British Government are truly sincere in saying that there is a way to relieve the sufferings of Africans in Southern Africa apart from violence, they should support the judgment of the International Court and not veto any action by other nations to implement it, because that would lead to the same sense of disillusionment which was found in 1966, but this time it would be accentuated. Whatever the British Government decide to do about the general proposition in relation to abstention—and we know the different attitude of the United States—if any other States propose to implement the judgment I hope that our Government will not veto the resolution of the Security Council. They may think it unenforceable. They may not intend to abide by that resolution. But to veto it would be an affront to African opinion which we would find very difficult to control.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I apologise most sincerely to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for not being present to hear his speech. I had been looking forward very much to hearing what he had to say because I always find his remarks on this part of the African continent of great interest. However, like a number of other hon. Members, I was surprised at the early hour at which the debate started. I think it important that I should make a


few observations because I returned only yesterday from a visit to neighbouring African States.
The Minister referred, very sincerely, to his conviction, and that of the Government collectively, that more change is likely to be achieved in South Africa and South-West Africa through dialogue than by any other means of approach. I should like him to give us, if not tonight then on some other occasion. some specific examples of how, through dialogue, the Government are attempting to secure change in South Africa and South-West Africa and to give evidence of the success which has been achieved. I am afraid—and I hope that the Minister will accept this remark in the spirit in which it is made—that this has become an empty refrain. Since we have had in this country a Government committed to this approach. I do not believe that there is any evidence or sign of success in changing the South African Government's policy. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity at some time to provide evidence in support of his assertion.
The second thing of interest which the Minister said was—and it is a very seductive argument in many ways—that we must accept the fact of the presence of South Africa in South-West Africa. He was by implication arguing that we in the international community were impotent to do anything practical about it. Even if one accepts that pessimistic interpretation of events, there is the world of difference in a situation like this between saying that one is unable to do anything physically to remove South Africa from a position within South-West Africa and saying that, because one is in no position to do anything practical, one would exploit every opportunity for continuing to invest and to co-operate through every economic channel available with the South African authorities and, therefore, to shore up a system of which one does not approve.
I have never understood the logic of those who argue in that way, because, while it may be possible to sustain the argument that it is impossible to do anything physically about the situation, it is surely not then illogical to go on and say that we must examine ways in which we can extricate ourselves from the kind of

involvement which is leading to the maintenance and strengthening of a status quo of which we disapprove.
The Minister said that the Government felt bound to continue with the arrangement on the supply of uranium which was secured by the previous Administration. There are Members on this side of the House, including myself, who were most unhappy about this arrangement at the time. It is fair to argue that the advisory opinion of the International Court and the subsequent action of the Security Council has changed the situation so that while there could previously have been a legalistic argument about the rights and wrongs of having done this, there is now a different situation within which the Minister or anyone else tries to advance the virtues of maintaining the relationship. I support my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) who said that we have no alternative but to withdraw from that commitment.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman says that we have not got anything very much to show for dialogue. Has he anything to show how we will get rid of apartheid by seeking to impoverish the countries concerned?

Mr. Judd: The point I make is that we have to examine who is being impoverished and whose economic situation is being improved by the present form of co-operation. What is clear from the present form of co-operation between Britain and South Africa and South-West Africa is that the whites are benefiting disproportionately. There is no evidence that we are doing anything to close the gap in terms of economic justice.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) quoted an average black per capita income of £200 as being greater than most of the African territories. What he concealed is that the white per capita income in Namibia is £950. Therefore the average for the blacks is considerably below £200.

Mr. Judd: I hope that the Government will resist the temptation to get bogged down in a narrow and legalistic approach to this essentially political issue of Southern Africa. I am convinced that the time has passed when we can talk


in isolation of the crisis or difficulties in South-West Africa, the difficulties and tensions in South Africa and the problems of the Portuguese territories. As a result of a chain of events when we look at the Southern African situation we see in economic and political terms an essentially inter-related problem. Failure to act effectively in one theatre has repercussions in others. We have to recognise, and I cannot stress this too strongly, the cynicism which will be engendered in the majority of thinking Africans if we say that because we are impotent to do anything physically about the situation we must go on exploiting, expanding our involvement, our co-operation, increasing our economic benefits through association with a system of exploitation of which we say we disapprove. To them this just seems like plain double talk and if we continue it two things will happen.
Whatever the hon. Member for Haltemprice may have said, about the relative ineffectiveness of S.W.A.P.O. during the past two years we will increasingly see the feeling in the white-dominated areas of Southern Africa that because the international community is not prepared to do anything about the situation, even in the economic sphere, the only course will be to take the law into their hands and to use the freedom fighting and violent methods of which many of those involved do not ideally approve. They would far rather see peaceful change if it could be secured. This has to be seen in relation to what is already happening in the neighbouring Portuguese territories where there is plenty of evidence of considerable success with this form of activity.
The second point, which is closely related to this, is that as the cynicism grows as the double talk become increasingly evident something else will happen. We frequently hear the Government talking about their preoccupation with the spread of Communist influence in the African continent. One of the points which I feel very strongly about is our failure to identify ourselves with the rightful struggle, and even the Minister is inclined to endorse the moral justice of that struggle. Our failure to identify ourselves with the struggle is provoking the very thing which the Minister and his colleagues say they most fear in the African continent, and that is the spread of Communist domination. Increasingly

those people with their feeling of cynicism, of disappointment, feel that in the final analysis the only people who will stand firmly by them, who will take positive action on their side, are the totalitarian Communist Powers in the world.
I believe that this is an absolutely deplorable situation with the gravest implications for the future stability of the African continent, and for the future of our own economic situation in terms of the degree of involvement which we now have in the African continent.
Therefore, I would beg the Minister to consider with his colleagues whether we really are going to take this line, which I have already said this evening, seen by the people on the spot as nothing more than the weakest form of double talking.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman talks about double talk by this country. Has he not seen that the economic influence of South Africa has increased to the north and that the majority of independent States are increasing their trade with South Africa? South Africa's influence, economic influence in particular, is moving to the north far more rapidly than that of the guerrillas, the freedom fighters, to the south.

Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. If he is talking of countries immediately to the north of South Africa—for example, Zambia—

Mr. Wall: I was talking of the west coast.

Mr. Judd: —Zambia is a country which has absolutely no alternative in her landlocked situation; but if he is talking about the west coast—and he is now gradually beginning to narrow the argument down, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman that from a sedentary position he is increasingly confining his argument—of which part of West Africa is he talking about? Clearly, he is not speaking of Nigeria. He must be much more specific if he continues to make this form of observation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.